>>>I still don't see why I wouldn't have published it, had the choice been mine.
>
>Unless you're accusing Ashe of having unprotected sex without telling his partner he had AIDS- I don't agree that journalists need only chant "public interest" to justify breaching his privacy when he did nothing wrong and pleaded for his family to be protected.
>
>If there were any public interest here, it should have been the risk of AIDS infection from blood transfusions in the early '80s. That's a stand alone story whether Ashe is in it or not.
>
>Lets not forget that AIDS was scary stuff in the early 1980s. FWIW, I understand that his son was shunned as if he too might have the disease. Sanctimonious journalists prevented a dying father protecting his son from that sort of additional hurt. If people wonder why journalists are so despised- there's an example for you.

We're on completely different wavelengths here.
Your first paragraph implies that someone has to do something wrong before can before privacy can be breached.
That's just not the way I see it.
If something is true, the default assumption is that I'd publish it.