Martin London
 |
 Does the public have a right to know the name of the girl Al Gore
kissed in the third grade? Or lived with in college? Or if either of these
allegations is true? Matt Drudge, and the New York Post might say "Yes,"
but is the information therefore sufficiently germane to trump privacy rights
of the candidate?
The commonweal is not served by so demeaning our applicants for public
office. There is no political gain to stripping them of their private lives.
On the contrary, dignity is an important value in our social intercourse,
especially in political contests where the public attention is both broadly
based and intense. When we demean our candidates (and let's not forget that
one of them will become our President) we demean our society and ourselves.
Moreover, we hurt our interests if we require candidates to "tell all"
because too many sensible good men and women will decline to serve. We are
then left with (1) the liars; (2) those who are so insensitive, so lacking in
respect for themselves, their family, and their friends, that they are
willing to expose to public discussion irrelevant but extremely personal
matters; and (3) candidates who are so bland, whose lives are so sterile,
that their personal lives are totally uninteresting.
There is no legitimate public interest in private information that is
not directly relevant to the honesty or effectiveness of the candidate. If
the subject matter of the inquiry is not germane to job performance, the
public's interest in the information is outweighed by the benefits of denying
satisfaction of that curiosity.
Martin London is partner at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison. He is the author of "The Muzzled Media: Constitutional Crisis or Product Liability Scam?" published by The Twentieth Century Fund in 1993. He received an Award for Outstanding Oral Advocacy, presented by Office of the Appellate Defender, in 1998. Mr. London has lectured extensively on law and trial practice.
|
|
