Michael Ventre

Last week a British court ruled that a tabloid newspaper breached the privacy of Max Mosley, head of Formula One racing, when it reported that he engaged in a sadomasochistic orgy with a Nazi theme. As it turns out, there was an orgy, with sadomasochism, and some of the hookers who participated might have barked out commands in German, but it could not be determined that it was a Nazi-themed event.

So Mosley won, if your idea of winning is being exposed as a participant in kinky sex parties.

This brings us to Alex Rodriguez, who to my knowledge has never engaged in sadomasochistic orgies of any type, least of all ones with Nazi overtones. But the general issue of what is private when it comes to media scrutiny is at the center of both situations.

With Mosley, he was dealing with British law, which is much more protective of privacy and much less inclined to let the media have their way with celebrity lives. With Rodriguez, it seems that anything goes. If he ever desired to be involved in a sadomasochistic orgy, or even a garden-variety one with no costumes or signage, he will probably have to wait until his playing days are over unless he wants every detail on the Internet.

Athletes as celebrities In modern sports coverage, all is fair game Independent blogs driving edgier coverage Ventre: Media have crossed the line in sports Celizic: Athletes brought this onto themselves Slide show: Tabloids can't resist the athletes Live vote: Is off-field behavior newsworthy?   Discussion board: How far should media go?

The British court ruled in Mosley’s case that he had a “reasonable expectation” of privacy. But to my knowledge there is no such provision in American law for famous people, because the press is protected by the First Amendment. As much as I understand the “fair game” concept as it applies to those who willingly step into the spotlight, and as staunch a believer as I am in free speech, my problem is with the lack of journalistic restraint and the distorted modern view of what is and what isn’t newsworthy.

If Alex Rodriguez is involved in a messy divorce, I don’t think it’s anybody’s business. If he’s cheating on his wife, I don’t think it’s appropriate to report it. If he has an orgy with an Arbor Day theme, as titillating as that information might be, I don’t think it should hit the papers or the airwaves.

However, all that goes out the window if somehow his personal life or his behavior is affecting his performance on the field. Then it’s news.

He’s a baseball player. Fans expect him to perform to earn his $28 million salary. If he’s struggling at the plate at the same time his wife is going after half of his net worth, the question, “Is your divorce affecting your performance?” is perfectly legitimate. If he starts showing up late to the park for games, hung over and tired from partying with a bevy of cocktail waitresses, then the media are justified in grilling him about his nocturnal adventures.

Special feature Tabloid targets Athletes weren't always popular with the paparazzi, but sometimes it's just too hard for the tabloids to resist.

Yet if he’s just living his life, batting .324, with 21 homers and 62 RBI, and not stinking it up at third base, and the media stake out his apartment in order to snap photos of him with various lovelies, then the journalistic component has been removed from the equation and replaced with a lurid yearning for sensationalism.

Granted, there isn’t much to be done about it. Telling paparazzi to back off is like telling Brett Favre to accept retirement. There just isn’t much hope that will happen. But is the constant hounding of a professional athlete 24/7 in pursuit of any salacious bits of gossip appropriate? Because if it is, then what next?

Special feature Athletes and celebs hook up Slideshow: The stars linked to A-Rod and others in sports. NBCSports.com

Alex Rodriguez has two children with wife Cynthia. Is it open season on the kids? Can the media stake out their pre-schools and report on their various playdates? Why not? If you’re going to say that A-Rod is fair game, that any dalliances he has with a pop star like Madonna or an unknown stripper are available to be photographed and distributed globally, then how much of a stretch is it to suggest that when you draw the line somewhere but then keep moving it and moving it, someday there will be no line at all?

I believe in the right of an average citizen to bear arms. I’m not a fan of guns, but I think if somebody wants to have a rifle for hunting, or a pistol for protection, they should be able to have those items. But as a nation we draw the line somewhere. We don’t let people set up cannons in their front yards. We don’t allow folks to walk around with grenade launchers. And I don’t think anybody should have an assault rifle, either.

In these firearm examples, we apply common sense. The media, unfortunately, is not bound by that concept.

We draw the line somewhere when it comes to guns, but as far as the media are concerned, we give them free reign, and rogue members of the Fourth Estate often abuse that First Amendment freedom by collecting images and information using a warped interpretation of what is and what isn’t newsworthy.