I love the term “general interest.” As a former reporter, I’ve often wondered how clearly that term is defined. “The right to privacy does not prohibit any publication of matter which is of public or general interest.” (Warren & Brandeis, “The Right to Privacy,” Ubiquitous Surveillance)
Warren and Brandeis continue by stating that the design of such a privacy law must protect people’s personal matters from being made public business. Whether or not the information published is truthful or unintended to be malicious, these matters do not defend the actions of publishing personal information.

But, in a world where the latest celebrity gossip is waiting for us at the stroke of a key, how can we achieve this sort of privacy? And better yet, how can we achieve this when social media outlets (i.e. Twitter, Facebook) and texting allow us to instantly share personal matters of our own with a plethora of others?

“The right to privacy ceases upon the publication of the facts by the individual, or with his consent.” (Warren & Brandeis, “The Right to Privacy,” Ubiquitous Surveillance)

So that’s the deal breaker. But then, what is left to be private? Should we redefine the word itself or completely erase it from the English language? If we break our own privacy law and publish materials meant to be personal, how are we to determine what is personal and of unimportance to others? If my Facebook houses my every move and my Twitter accounts for all of my political ranting, how can I be appalled by the publication of a personal matter simply revealed by an outside source? Have these resources taken away our “right to privacy?”