In a culture hungry for images and stories about fallen or struggling icons, the question of what or who is news always surfaces, especially when a child is involved.
But should the child of Arnold Schwarzenegger be treated, for lack of a better analogy, like a victim and be hidden from the public, since he is in effect, newsworthy and connected to a major public figure?
When should an identity be revealed?
This question is being asked in newsrooms around the country and around the world in regards to the ‘Arnold Schwarzenegger Love Child Scandal.’
Schwarzenegger confessed to having an extra-marital affair this week and all media has since learned the identity of the woman, a former member of the former California governor’s household staff and her child, the result of the affair. The child, a male, is now 14 years old and attends high school. His face is hidden in all published photographs. Why?
Traditionally, identities have been hidden in photographs because of privacy and age concerns. Victims of sexual assault and mafia violence usually comes to mind.
The identity of a celebrity’s child, however, is not protected because, most often, the child is photographed in public with a parent. A celebrity gives up their and their child’s right to privacy as soon as they leave their private property and step into the public domain. Celebrity and child may be photographed on the street, at basketball games and in restaurants, or shopping at the supermarket because the law says it. Once you leave your house, you and your kid are fair game.
[pagebreak]
Another dimension to consider is how the photograph of the kid was obtained. If the photograph was obtained illegally, say stolen from a household and sold, then the press is trafficking stolen property. If the photo was given to the press by a parent and the photograph’s contract included an explicit right to privacy, then the press must abide by that contract, not that we’re skilled in contract law or anything. It appears to be common sense.
What will be gained in the revelation of Arnold’s kid’s face other than information for an hungry public? A crime was not committed against this kid. So, yes, his image should be published if he is only photographed in public.
Some may argue that releasing this child’s full identity (we know his mother’s and father’s name, ergo some of his identity) may cause harm, such as harassment from strangers and the press. In short, this kid’s life may never be the same if we know who he is.
So what’s to be done? I say if the kid steps out of his house and into the public sphere, take his picture and publish it. If he’s in his house, don’t.
