The Oscar Pistorius murder trial has highlighted the ever-present tensions between a person's right to privacy individual, particularly when it concerns a public figure, and media law. to freedom of expression, especially when the information is of public interest. South Africa, as a country with a history of discrimination, still strives to uphold all rights of its citizens. So, in a case like Pistorius's, where two rights conflict, it is never clear which one should be set aside in favor of the other. . Everyone, whether a public figure or not, has the right to a certain form of privacy; the objective of the media and the courts is then to determine to what extent the privacy of individuals can be violated in the name of the public interest. Another important question that must be considered is whether the information is of public interest or whether it is information that the public will find interesting to know; in other words, it must be determined whether the information is of public interest and newsworthy or whether it is simply newsworthy. During Oscar Pistorius's bail hearing, broadcast and recording media were not allowed to record any information. The hearing was reported to the public in the form of tweets, still images and written articles. Before the trial began, some South African media companies requested to broadcast the trial. The results of the application were positive. The media were allowed to record the trial proceedings, but they had to respect certain constraints in order to ensure a fair trial for Pistorius. Some of the restrictions were: The presiding judge, Thokozile Masipa, will specifically indicate when recording should begin and when it should stop. No records of personal legal discussions and private conversations are all...... middle of paper ...... remains and how far they can push into someone's private life, even if that person is a public figure. So far, there has been no illegal or unethical collection of information relating to the Pistorius trial. Even the posts regarding his iPad browsing history were ethical, as the history was not stolen as it was displayed in court. The journalists did as they had since the trial began, reporting as they had done the events that had occurred in court. Public interest is another topic of great discussion, because who decides what the public interest is. There is a very fine line between information that is "of public interest" and information that would simply be interesting for the public to know. (SA Constitution: 19). The South African Press CodeBy ruling in favor of the media, Mhlambo was attempting to satisfy both the media's right to freedom of expression