In civil cases, freedom of speech does not cover defamation of character (libel and slander). I think publishing someone's sex tape could definitely harm their reputation, which is what free speech does NOT protect.

Relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1357/

Let's rephrase this:

Do you think that a publication should be able to publish facts about a person that are in the public interest?

Do you think that a publication should be able to publish facts about a person that were obtained illegally but were given to the publication, and that are in the public interest?

Do you think that a publication should be able to publish facts about a person without their consent, when it is in the public interest?

Yes, I do. But you shouldn't be able to photograph me in my own home whilst I'm naked and having a shower, and certainly not without my consent. Nor should you be able to do this to Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton.

Nor should you be allowed to make these photos by breaking into my house and installing a miniature camera in my bathroom.

Did you intend the implication that, if I had your consent, I probably still shouldn't be able to photograph you in the shower?

Yes.

>Do you think a publication should be able to publish facts about a person without their consent?

Depends. Is it important that other people know these facts, as in "will they be harmed/make bad decisions if they don't know them"? (Think knowledge about a politician.)

>Do you think a publication should be able to publish facts about a person that were initially obtained illegally but were given to the publication? (see wikileaks…etc)

See question two.

This includes irrelevant sextapes.

Also if there is a greater good at stake (for example the security of a nation) its questionable if the public needs to have access to every intimate detail, that often just contribute to humiliating the person in question.