The Oscar Pistorius murder trial brought to light the ever-present tensions between an individual's right to privacy, especially when it comes to a public figure, and the right of the media to freedom of expression, especially when the information is in the public interest. South Africa, as a country with a history of discrimination, always strives to uphold all the rights of its citizens, so in a case like Pistorius' where there are two conflicting rights, it is never clear which should be wavered to favor of the other. Everyone, whether public figures or not, has the right to some form of privacy; the aim therefore of the media and the courts is to discover to what extent the privacy of individuals can be violated in the name of the public interest. Another important question that needs to be taken into consideration is whether the information is of public interest or whether it is information that the public will find interesting to know; in other words, one must discern whether the information is of public interest and newsworthy or whether it is simply newsworthy. During Oscar Pistorius' bail hearing, broadcast and recording media were not allowed to record information. The hearing was reported to the public in the form of tweets, still images and written articles. Before the trial began, some media companies in South Africa requested to broadcast the trial. The outcome of the request was positive. The media could record the proceedings but had to have certain constraints in order to ensure a fair trial for Pistorius. Some of the restrictions were as follows: The presiding judge, Thokozile Masipa, will specifically stipulate when recording should begin and when it should stop. No records of personal legal discussions and private conversations is all... half the paper... rest and how far they can go into someone's private life, even if that someone is a public figure. To date there has been no illegal or unethical collection of information relating to the Pistorius trial. Postings regarding his iPad's browsing history were also ethical, because the history was not stolen as it was shown in court. Journalists were doing what they had been doing since the trial began, reporting the events that transpired in court as they had. Public interest is another topic of great discussion because who decides what the public interest is. There is a very fine line between news of "public interest" and news that would, quite simply, be interesting for the public to know (SA Constitution: 19). The South African Press CodeBy ruling in favor of the media, Mhlambo sought to satisfy the media's right to freedom of the press