Did Joost van der Westhuizen forfeit all rights to privacy when he became a rugby player? Or are claims of a sordid sex tape a serious violation of his privacy? Hadlee Simons and Rebekah Kendal go head-to-head…

Hadlee Simons reckons that Joost signed an unwritten deal when he became a celebrity, selling his privacy in exchange for fame and fortune.

Joost van der Westhuizen. Rugby legend, father, husband and… porn star? The ex-Bok has heated up the headlines (not the only lines he's been associated with) with a steamy sex tape reportedly featuring the retired scrumhalf.

Whether it's him or not is irrelevant, as a public figure, he has no private life. Even FIA boss Max Mosley admitted a defeat of sorts when he sued News of the World, not for revealing the video, but for claiming that Mosley was playing the role of a Nazi in it.

You could claim that this is gutter journalism — that celebrities are subjected to gross invasions of privacy — but you'd be wrong. Celebrities sign an unwritten law, allowing their private lives to be read like a large-font open book — and that book will be eagerly read by many people.

By allowing the media to cover your triumphs, you allow them to cover your downfalls, your tragedies and everything else in between. Joost is no exception; in fact, his is a textbook case.

In any other country, this case would have been more debatable, but this is South Africa and he is a Springbok. The Boks are national celebrities and, therefore, this is an even bigger issue – not just because Joost is seen on television, but because he serves as a role model to children.

The precedent has already been set by many other sportsmen and women. Remember Dwight Yorke's sex tape featuring Mark Bosnich being spanked? Remember our latest example, Michael Phelps? And just to prove that this is not limited to the West, Malaysian politician Elizabeth Wong also made headlines in February when racy photographs were leaked. This is not gutter journalism — people use that term either when it suits them or if they feel an emotional attachment to the subject.

Whether Joost van der Westhuizen is in the tape or not is irrelevant, he has no choice but to accept the unwritten pact made between himself and the public.

Rebekah Kendal has no interest whatsoever in Joost's sex life. She also reckons that it's not in the public interest, although the public may be (inexplicably) interested…

South Africans love a bit of a skandaal.

Proof: You Magazine; The Daily Voice; Die Son and Heat Magazine.

Yip, although the last example on that list comes with a glossy cover and contains riveting pics of celebrity cellulite, it is essentially just a glorified tabloid trading in gossip. It also just so happens to be the magazine that claims to own a seedy video of Joost van der Westhuizen getting up to all sorts of illegal shenanigans.

Further proof: articles about Joost topped iafrica.com's Most Read list three days out of seven last week.

Unfortunately, this says more about iafrica.com's readers than it does about the importance of the sordid tale of a sex tape allegedly featuring the former Springbok skipper.

Public interest! I hear you cry. No, not exactly.

Just because something is of interest to the public, it does not necessarily mean that it is in the public interest. Furthermore, just because an individual is perceived to be a role model or public figure, it does not automatically follow that their private lives are public property.

Freedom of speech needs to be balanced with the rights of individuals. The line between the two is sometimes blurred, but a general rule governing libel cases is that the answers to both of the following questions should be yes. Is it true? Is it in the public interest? If not, it's defamation.

Let's address the first question. Is it true? Well, the editor of Heat is pretty darn convinced that the character in the video is Joost, so it must be, right? Wrong. When publically accusing someone of engaging in at least one criminal act, irrefutable proof (and this does not cover grainy video footage of a guy who happens to have dark hair and a strong jaw-line) is a good place to start.

If — and let me stress that word again, if — the allegation is true, it still needs to pass the second test. Is it in the public interest? Joost van der Westhuizen is role model and his behaviour is sometimes in the public interest. When he was charged last year with malicious damage to property after breaking the gate at the Dainfern Golf Estate and Country Club and verbally assaulting the security guard on duty, the information was in the public interest. Not only because his behaviour resulted in criminal charges, but also because it involved the property/welfare of others.

If criminal charges were laid against Joost for doing drugs and, if it were the case, having sex with a prostitute (the profession of the women involved remains unclear), then it would be in the public interest. As it stands, however, what Joost chooses to do in his free time is entirely his own business.

Perhaps the more important question is not whether or not Joost's sex life is in the public interest, but rather why the South African public is so interested in Joost's sex life. And the answer to that question may explain why we choose chaps like Joost as role models…

Do you agree with Hadlee or Rebekah? Share your thoughts below…