David L. Hudson, one of the top First Amendment experts at the First Amendment Center, takes the argument about how close to cover Tiger Woods through a legal review.

He cites case law from the past to note that reporters covering Tiger closely, and not always getting answers, is not too intrusive.

“Photographing Tiger Woods and his family when they are on a public street does not rise to invasion of privacy,” he writes. “However, if individuals - including members of the press - do actually engage in what Woods termed 'constant harassment' that is 'highly offensive to a reasonable person,' then they may have crossed a legal line and committed invasion of privacy.”

Woods returns to competitive golf this week at the Master's. His Monday press conference was considered less-than-spectacular for those seeking new or inside information. So much for that intrusion.