Arthur Ashe Ethical Issues

Prior restraint is laced with a presumption of unconstitutionality and completely goes against the founding doctrines of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court, therefore, must consider a number of factors before censoring a publication, including the consequences of such censorship. In the case of Arthur Ashe and USA Today, the Supreme Court has found that USA Today had the right to publish the article in question. Although the information published in the article was embarrassing and private, it was undoubtedly newsworthy. As a public figure, Arthur Ashe cannot maintain the same levels of privacy as those of a private person, as the public interest in him grants the freedom of the press to write about and investigate his personal life. The

manner in which the press decides to publish this information is a matter of ethics. Nonetheless, the Court finds that the press has the complete and absolute right to publish this information as they see fit.
The information revealed in USA Today’s article is embarrassing because of the stigmas associated with the AIDS disease.

AIDS was referred to as GRID (Gay-related immune deficiency) until the U.S Department of Health and Human Services announced that the probable cause of AIDS is a retrovirus referred to today as the human immunodeficiency virus. The general public and the medical community believed that AIDS was attributed to and the consequence of a homosexual lifestyle and/or the use of intravenous drugs, and this notion persists even though AIDS is no longer referred to as GRID. In the eyes of the general public and community today, AIDS is a disease associated with homosexuality or drug abuse. This presumption bleeds into how those who contract AIDS are perceived by the general public, and in the case of Arthur Ashe, USA Today’s article has the ability to severely tarnish his reputation. People living with AIDS, as a result of the stigmas associated with the disease, are often subject to discrimination by their communities. This can manifest itself through violence, rejection, and prejudice. Arthur Ashe, because of the article published by USA Today, will now be subject to these same forms of discrimination. His role as a public figure will only worsen the situation for him, because he is subject to scrutinization and condemnation from any individual in the world that has access to the news. This discrimination will also beset Ashe’s wife and six-year-old daughter. USA

Today’s article revealed information that was extremely embarrassing, given the negative stereotypes and misinformed beliefs on AIDS, and the consequences these stigmas have the AIDS community.
Furthermore, the information revealed in USA Today was private, as evidenced by the fact that Ashe’s condition was only known amongst a close friends and medical professionals, and ultimately because medical information was exposed.

Arthur, “…with help from close friends and trusted medical advisors, was able to keep the startling information from the public’s awareness.” Information is considered private by the Supreme Court if the information revealed is only known within the individual’s range of private relationships. This not only indicates the fact the Ashe didn’t want the information to be publically known, but also that he only trusted a few individuals to share this information with. Doctor-patient relationships also qualify the information shared between doctors and their patients as private. For all intents and purposes, the fact that Arthur Ashe had contracted AIDS was a private matter. Moreover, the Supreme Court recognizes the fact that medical information is by nature, private. This is evidenced by the Court’s decision in Olmstead vs. United States, in which the court declared that “…of all the rights of the citizen, few are of greater importance or more essential to his peace and happiness than the right of personal security, and that involves...exemption of his private affairs…” Private affairs, regardless of an individual’s status as a public figure/official or private person, regards medical information. Along with information on finances, taxes, and

intimate relationships, medical information is considered to be of the utmost privacy and confidentiality by the Supreme Court. However, whether or not the information published by USA Today is considered private by the Supreme Court is irrelevant, as the article in question is protected by the newsworthiness prong of the test, and this, despite the fact that the information disclosed by embarrassing and private, protects the First Amendment freedoms of USA Today.
Arthur Ashe, as a public figure, is victim to the public interest in his personal life, his accomplishments, and his failures, and this interest is what grants USA Today the right to publish the article in question. Arthur Ashe is of significant notoriety and fame, and his accomplishments are not limited to tennis. Rather, Ashe has “…reaped awards and branched off into other professional areas, including journalism, the media and philanthropic endeavors…Arthur stood out when he chose to utilize his status to bring about change.” Ashe has obviously made a name for himself outside of the realm of sports, and he is a man of considerable renown and fame. If Ashe were just a tennis player with no significant accomplishments or achievements, USA Today’s article would not be protected by the newsworthiness prong. However, because of his accomplishments in and outside of the tennis court, the public has a justified interest in what became of him, and this guaranteed USA Today’s right to publish the article in question. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Court dealt with a similar situation in Sidis vs F-R Publishing Corporation, in which the Court found that “…[we] are not yet disposed to afford to all of the intimate details of private life an absolute immunity from the prying of the press. At some point the public interest in obtaining information becomes dominant over the individual’s desire for privacy.” Sidis was an individual of considerable prominence given his unusual accomplishments. Naturally, the public was interested in his affairs and day-to-day life, and this persisted even though he outgrew his role as a public figure. In this case, the Court ruled that the public interest outweighed Sidis’ interest in keeping his life private. The same rules apply for Arthur Ashe, and given that he is of relatively more celebrity than Sidis was, the public’s interest in him is considerably significant. This public interest justifies the newsworthiness prong of the privacy test, and this protects the media and USA Today’s rights.
The Supreme Court rules in favor of USA Today. Although the information published was embarrassing and private, it was newsworthy. The newsworthiness of the article stems from the public’s interest in Arthur Ashe and Arthur Ashe’s role as a public figure. However, given the seriousness of his illness and the fact that his condition would have been revealed eventually the press should have, by a matter of ethics, waited until Ashe revealed the information himself or passed away to publish the the article. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court finds that USA Today had the right to publish the article in question.