Many people say that the press should not pry into the personal lives of private individuals. But the press has the right to publish any story of interest to the public unless that story is libelous. So, if a story about a private individual is not libelous, the press has an obligation to publish it, for such information is clearly of interest to the public. The argument's reasoning is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument presumes, without giving warrant, that ["the press's right to publish always outweighs the individual's right not to be libeled", "one's having a right to do something entails one's having an obligation to do it", 'the press can publish nonlibelous stories about private individuals without prying into their personal lives', 'if one has an obligation to do something then one has a right to do it']