All expect one of the photos were accessible to other but only to a few friends. The paper is an attempt to get into the shoes of that reporter and help solve the ethical dilemma.
The point, which is important here to note is that by not allowing that article to the published, one, would be upholding the principles of “liberty” and “freedom”. Analysis has indicated only a handful of prominent philosophers in the Western world that have not gone on to mention “liberty” as a value or virtue. Whether it is Karl Marx or John Stuart Mill, John Rawls or Kant, Nietzsche or Aristotle, they all believe that liberty and freedom is what makes the integral part of the human essence. In the absence of freedom and liberty, humans are very much similar to other animals. In fact, John Rawls, one of greatest philosophers of the 21st century has gone to elaborate the concept of liberty and its limits in a great manner, which says, “Liberty can only be restricted for liberty itself” (Corey, Corey & Callanan, pp. 64-67, 2010). Quite understandably, by posting those photos in the newspaper, Jane would be restricting the freedom of those teachers since those photos were not for the entire world but for a handful of friends. The only rational behind restricting the freedom of those teachers would be if their freedom had limiting someone else’s liberty of information, informed consent or others (Livingstone, pp. 85-89, 2009). However, this is not the case here. Their “lewd” photos are a matter of their personal life and not their public lives and whatever they do, after they are done teaching, should not be of any concern to others. Everyone has a right to live his or her private or personal lives with minimum interference from the outside (Gilliland, Steiner & Skarlicki, pp. 36-37, 2007).
This article would be worth publishing and in fact, it would have become imperative to publish the articles if these photos