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

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

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