That isn't, strictly speaking, true. It's certainly his right to refuse to comment, appear on camera, accept interviews, etc., but it's also Newsweek's right to say what they want about his life and his work. As long as they aren't writing falsehoods and don't cross the line into harassment, they're free to publish.
I was speaking of moral rights rather than legal rights, and of being a good person. Though I realize many feel these traits don't exist at all.
Just because you can doesn't mean you should.
Oh, I agree with you. The Grantland thing from a bit ago is I think a better example than this Newsweek piece though. Here there's arguably a legitimate public interest served by knowing where this huge and valuable thing comes from. While it right on the border, and others may certainly disagree, I think it's a stretch to call this piece so far over that line as to merit outrage about it.
He used his real name. And a distinct name, at that. There are only 8 results on LinkedIn for "Satoshi Nakamoto", and at least one of them is a fake one. If he truly wished to remain anonymous. And despite this, it took journalists 5 years to find him. If he'd made up a name, he could have probably been anonymous for life. But he chose vanity over anonymity. And now he's an outed public figure. He can no longer sue for 'slander' and must instead argue the much more difficult case of 'libel'.
Minor correction. Slander is oral; libel is written. Nothing to do with public figures or not. The distinction you're looking for is that, for public figures (which may or may not apply in this case), actual malice--as opposed to just falsehood--may need to proven in order to get a judgement.
Could you explain how you think this right works, and to what extent it protects people aiming to effect the world from scrutiny by that world?
The US does have a right to privacy, but invoking to suggest nobody should have asked about Nakamoto suggests you are talking about something entirely different.