1. Claim 2: Human Rights side
1.1. Human Rights Act 1998, the law has developed and individuals have significantly greater scope to use the law to protect their privacy
1.2. Thus in these terms, it is stated that everyone should have the right to privacy
1.3. This means that whoever you are, one should be allowed to do whatever they want to in their free time, since they are allowed to by this law.
1.4. Thus, even if you are a public frigure, as long as you do your work well, then you should be allowed to do whatever they want to when they are out of work or the public eye.
1.5. This also means that the media should not be allowed to intrude into their privacy and find out what these people are doing.
1.6. This will result in the inability of the people to criticise or scrutinise their actions.
1.7. However, this law gives these public figures a lot of freedom and thus, some of their actions may prove innappropriate.
1.8. This will also ruin their reputations as someone in public eye and also as a role model.
2. New node
3. Claim 1: Moral Side
3.1. People in the public eye are often judged and scrutinized by the people.
3.2. They are judged based on their actions and what they say as this is the only thing that the public can see clearly and make judgement upon.
3.3. When one is put in the spotlight, they will instantly be seen as role models to some, and there will be a certain standard of behavior and morals expected from them.
3.4. Thus, it can be said that itis EXPECTED that once put in the public eye, one should already have a certain standard of etiquette and mannerism.
3.5. Also, it is natural for the people to be curious of what these public figures do in the private time. this will cause the paparrazzi to take action and start investigating.
3.5.1. However, the paparrazzi may exaggerate or over-criticise the event. The paparrazzi do such things so as to engage the interest of the people.
3.5.1.1. These actions may cause trauma to the family members of these public figures and may worsen the situation.
3.6. Now the real question of morals comes in to play. Whether such public figures are actually real role models to look up to mostly depends on their actions in private.
3.7. Thus, in order to be seen as one who is respectable and that can be looked up to, one has to be someone of real morals and not just one who puts up an act for the media.
3.8. Thus, in this argument, what the public figures do in their private time does indeed matter.
4. There are two main sides of this argument.
4.1. Human Rights side
4.1.1. Human Rights Act 1998, the law has developed and individuals have significantly greater scope to use the law to protect their privacy
4.1.1.1. Thus this sides feels that everyone has the rights to privacy, and thus the people in the public eye should have the rights to do what every they want to in their own free time.
4.2. Moral side
4.2.1. The people in the public eye are viewed as role models, thus they should set a good example for the rest of the people.
5. Definations
5.1. "Public Eye"
5.1.1. Under the watch of the public, or the world. People put receiving public attention and scrutiny.