PRESSure Makes Cain Drop Out

Herman Cain, one of the Republican presidential candidates, dropped out of the race Saturday after allegations were made about him having a 13-year affair and sexually harassing several women. If you are interested in more information about the situation, read this article. The reason Cain dropped out of the race, as I said, was because of allegations made against him. The first amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of the press, which allows almost anything to be published. Over the past 200 years, that broad category has been narrowed down to mean anything about public officials. Is it fair for the press to publish personal things about a presidential candidate that may cause personal damage to the person? 

My initial response was - of course. Freedom of the press is 

an essential American right. Herman Cain put himself in the public eye by declaring to run for president so he is a public figure who has to endure scrutiny. After more research, I find myself on the other side of things. After the  New York Times Co. v. Sullivan case in 1964, The U.S. Supreme Court decided that nothing may be published with "actual malice" - the intention of harming someone. Publishing information regarding an affair Cain may or may not have had was clearly published to intentionally hurt Cain, his campaign,  and his wife. Although I am not a fan of Cain's, I question whether the press may have gone too far this time in revealing such a personal part of Cain's life. On the other hand, I think the American public deserves to know what kind of candidate they are considering electing, and his actions reflect on what type of person he is. What do you think? Did the press have the right to publish intimate details about Cain's life? 

Here's a satirical parody of Cain: