[Feature Story] The Violence Behind the Phrase “Because They Are Public Figures”

   The term “public figure” is often used when invading someone’s privacy, placing excessive expectations on them, or even directing criticism toward them. Celebrities, sports stars, YouTubers, politicians, and influencers are all under the public eye and, because they are “public figures,” their private lives are subject to public scrutiny. 

   The issue arises when this scrutiny goes beyond mere curiosity and becomes a form of social control. Rumors about romantic relationships, family issues, past mistakes or actions, and sometimes even a person’s preferences or personality are all subjected to public judgment. While some individuals voice their distress over this excessive interference, the public often responds with, “They are public figures, they should endure it.” However, this statement carries more meaning than just a factual assertion. It serves as a justification, a logical excuse to disregard someone’s suffering or to legitimize unfair criticism. The phrase “because they are public figures” allows the public to invade, judge, and sometimes attack someone’s private life, all while absolving any discomfort that comes with such actions. 

 There is undoubtedly a public aspect to being a celebrity. They convey emotions to the public, and their recognition grows based on public response. They participate in advertisements, sell content, and interact with fans, where “being loved” translates into revenue. Given that they exist within this structure, the argument that they should endure some level of public exposure and criticism is partially convincing. However, the problem lies in how this level of scrutiny has gradually expanded to invade almost every aspect of their lives. A celebrity faces paparazzi and criticism simply for being in a romantic relationship. When their child’s face is exposed, comments like “Are they exploiting their child too?” flood in, yet the most clicked articles feature the child’s face. Within this structure, where both criticism and interest operate through clicks, a public figure’s private life has been reduced to sellable content. Even their past is not safe. If something they said or did in the past is rediscovered by social media or online communities, it can affect their current image and activities. Without proper context, the public often forms judgments. As a result, advertising contracts may be terminated, and individuals may be removed from programs almost immediately. Rarely are they given the chance to explain or apologize, as judgments are often swayed by momentary public opinion.

   Of course, as their profession relies on public trust, the need for some responsibility and standards cannot be dismissed. However, the reality we face is more akin to censorship than setting standards. The public applies its own standards to the daily lives of public figures and seeks to claim moral superiority. This applies not only to celebrities but to YouTubers and influencers as well, and the scope of this scrutiny is widening. Repeatedly, the phrase “Because they are public figures” comes up. This is a way of absolutizing public expectations without distinguishing between responsibility and authority. However, the term “public figure” is legally a narrow concept. It refers only to people with actual public authority, such as politicians and public servants, but celebrities and influencers are legally private individuals. Despite this, we place the label “public figure” on them and use it as a reason to invade their privacy. 

   What is more concerning is that this perspective distorts the entire society’s standards. The act of watching over the lives of famous people ultimately spreads to the general public. In today’s society, social media posts are evaluated in job interviews, and people are required to prove their innocence regarding their romantic or marital relationships. A culture that judges others’ privacy leads to a society where everyone is being watched.

   Public figures operate in the public domain, but that does not mean they are required to expose everything about themselves. Their popularity and influence do not mean that the public has ownership over their entire being. Celebrities, YouTubers, and politicians are ultimately private individuals with personal lives. We often claim the “right to know,” but we rarely consider where the limits of that right lie. The boundary between public interest and curiosity has become blurred, and more and more people believe that crossing this boundary is acceptable. 

   It is time to reflect on the true nature of our desire to know, considering whether it is genuinely driven by public interest or merely by the pursuit of sensationalism. Regardless of whether a person is a public figure, consuming and judging another’s life must begin with the recognition of their humanity. The notion that someone should endure such scrutiny because they are a public figure has long been employed to overlook individual suffering. This judgmental attitude, once directed outward, inevitably turns inward, shaping a society where constant surveillance and criticism leave no one unaffected. What is now required is not endurance but a renewed commitment to respect and dignity in how we view and treat others.