PRIVACY ISSUES IN JOURNALISM IN 1990S.   Term Paper ID:25362 Click to get this paper

Essay Subject: Examines First Amendment issues, examples, legal decisions & risks of civil law suits for invasions of privacy arising out of newsgathering, reporting & broadcasting.... More...

15 Pages / 3375 Words 60 sources, 26 Citations, TURABIAN Format $60.00 Return to List of Papers

Paper Abstract: Examines First Amendment issues, examples, legal decisions & risks of civil law suits for invasions of privacy arising out of newsgathering, reporting & broadcasting. Paper Introduction: PRIVACY ISSUES IN JOURNALISM IN THE 1990S ABSTRACT For most of the 20th century, certainly through the 1960s, the civil tort of invasion of privacy in various forms expanded the liability of the media under state law. Thereafter, under various constitutional decisions of the Supreme Court expanding the scope of the First Amendment guarantees of a free press, the media enjoyed considerable freedom to investigate and report and/or broadcast events as they saw fit, subject to the continued vitality of certain limitations relating to the protection of personal privacy under state tort law which continued to operate within the penumbra of federal First Amendment jurisprudence. During the 1990s, some federal and state courts tightened restrictions against particularly egregious invasions of privacy Text of the Paper: The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper. Simpson on the nightof his ex-wife's murder. 97.[18] In the intrusion area, cases continuing to allow reporters latitudeto surveil subjects outdoors, even in driveways of their own home, areFrazier v. Hill,385 U.S. 665 (1972), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment applied tonewsgathering as well as to publishing and speech. The Court said at 1431 that the networksurveillance had 'altered the Wolfson's physical and emotional sense ofseclusion" and made them "prisoners in [their] home." One Californiaappellate court even found that reporters committed illegal intrusionoutside the home in Shulman v. Gaynes and Harvey L. 254 (1964), that in cases involvingpublic figures or where public events were involved no privacy action wouldlie unless actual malice could be shown. Even embarrassing revelations onnetwork talk shows, such as a guest's police record or history of incest,have been found to be of public interest. 1998): 1 86-11 3.Prosser, William L. [19]Deborah Pines, "Few Remedies Against Paparazzi," New York LawJournal, 4 April 1997, 2. Prosser, Law of Torts (St. Sullivan, 376 U.S. Also not covered are the privacy exceptionsof federal and state freedom of information acts and the provisions ofother general and specific privacy laws. Giddings. Ct. 1994).California CIV. "Few Remedies Against Paparazzi." New York Law Journal, 4 April 1997, 1-2."Privacy, Photography, and the Press." Harvard Law Review 111 (Feb. 3349 (Deering Supp. 1982),op. Page (Ed.). v. . "Unusual TV Subject Can Sue Over Privacy." Los Angeles Daily Journal, 2 June 1998, 1 & 11.Carter, T. denied, 479 U.S. The issue is whether"the use would lead a reasonable audience member to think that plaintiffwas affiliated with the advertised product or service."[9] Private Facts. Supp. 97.Diaz v. A plaintiff must show publication or dissemination;privacy of the information disclosed; disclosure which is highly offensiveto a reasonable person; and not of public concern; and which outragescommunity decency. . 1997).Branzberg v. Finally,in Miller v. News and Observer, 312 S.E.2d 4 5 (N.C. 54 . The Private Facts Tort As a Remedy Disclosure of Sexual Orientation." Cardozo Arts and EntertainmentLaw Journal (Fall 1993): 857-9 4.New York CIV. Daily Mail Publishing Co., 443 U.S. [11]Ken Ghormley, "One Hundred Years of Privacy," Wisconsin Law Review(Sept.-Oct. 8,and New York, CIV. free expression andan investigative press."[3] In 1964 William Prosser said that courts in the overwhelming majorityof states recognized civil (tort) actions for invasion of privacy.[4]According to Carter et al, the District of Columbia and all states butMinnesota recognize a right of privacy in some form.[5] In the 196 s and197 s a number of states, including Alaska, California, Florida, Hawaii,Illinois, Louisiana, Montana and South Carolina, added protection ofprivacy provisions to their constitutions. Simon and Herbert A.Terry, Fundamentals of Mass Communication Law (Minneapolis: WestPublishing, 1996), 97. 51-52 (McKinney 1992). "One Hundred Years of Privacy." Wisconsin Law Review (Sept.- Oct. National Broadcasting Co., 187 Cal. 1994). Co., 269 Cal.Rptr. After apromising beginning, the protection afforded privacy under state tort lawwas somewhat eclipsed and circumscribed by the emphasis placed by theSupreme Court since the late 6 s on protecting freedom of the press.However, in the 9 s some state courts and federal courts applying state lawin diversity of citizenship actions have sought to protect individualsagainst some of the more outrageous invasions of privacy which have come totheir attention. [7] Donald M. 1995): 379-399.Berger v. 2513 (1994) in which it heldby a 5-4 vote that the First Amendment could not be used by the media as adefense when it was sued by a source for breach of its promise to keep hisidentity confidential. 1997), Florida, FLA. This cause ofaction is generally called the right of publicity. denied, 114 S.Ct. The Court said at 1484 "reasonable people would regardthe NBC camera crew's intrusion into Dave Muller's bedroom at a time ofvulnerability and confusion occasioned by his seizure as 'highly offensive'conduct." Misappropriation. Hill, 385 U.S. Simon and Herbert A. Public opinion pollsrepeatedly showed concern over inaccuracy in the media. Barron, Todd F. Introduction Scope of Topic. American Broad. 1995: 8 8.Florida Constitution, Art. Zuckman. Onassis, 497 F.2d 986 (2d Cir. Cohn, 42 U.S. STAT. Mass Communication Law in a Nutshell. 1982), op. 1973). National Enquirer, Inc., 123 F.3d 1249 (9th Cir. Cowles Media Company, 113 S.Ct. American Broad. 1986). Supp. In Branzberg v. 54 . In Florida Star v. 1971).Doe v. Southeastern Pa. 665 (1972).Briscoe v. ANN. "Publication of the Name of a Sexual Assault Victim: the Collision of Privacy and Freedom of the Press."Criminal Law Bulletin 31 (Sept.-Oct. Page Keeton (Ed.), Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts (St.Paul: West Publishing, 1984), 854-855. 254 (1975).Carrizosa, Philip. Brandeis. Paul: West Publishing, 1964).Protection from Personal Intrusion Act, H.R. St. They did so withoutfirst obtaining his or his wife's consent. 8.Food Lion, Inc. Various bills were sponsored such as the Protection from PersonalIntrusion Act, H.R. Pa. Brandeis, "The Right to Privacy,"Harvard Law Review 4 (15 Dec. [14]Gillmore, 84. According to Prosser and Keeton, to be actionable,"the intrusion should be highly offensive to a reasonable person;" and itmust be "intentional interference with another's interest in solitude orseclusion."[6] The Courts have given the press considerable latitude inpursuing leads and otherwise engaging in newsgathering activities,especially in public and quasi-public places. The tabloid Globepublished the alleged rape victim's name and was prosecuted by the FloridaAttorney General under Florida's rape shield statute. B.J.F., 491 U.S. Southeastern Pa. BibliographyAisenson v. In finding the magazine liablefor intrusion, Judge Shirley Hufstedler said at 249 "the First Amendment isnot a license to trespass, to steal or to intrude by electronic means intothe precincts of another's home or office." An injunction was issuedagainst a free lance photographer who had harassed Jacqueline Onassis andher children in Galella v. [15]Kevin Philips, Mediacracy: American Political Parties in theCommunications Age (Garden City: Doubleday, 1975), 31. Messner, 286 N.Y.S.2d 832 (N.Y.1967) illustrated that not all false light cases involved defamation.Warren Spahn, a former major league baseball pitcher, was falsely depictedin a children's book as a war hero which arguably raised not lowered hisreputation. InDietemann v. One is the brooding omnipresence of the Supreme Court's free speechjurisprudence, which Ghormley says has produced "the result . Some of the privacy cases continue in the same vein as those of thefree speech era of the Supreme Court. Transp. The elements of a successful misappropriation caseare that a person's name or likeness was taken or used without his or herconsent; for commercial purposes, and damages resulted from the use. Dee, Martin J. . Law of Torts. Carrizosa says this is "one of the first [cases] to hold that aprivate person who unwillingly gets sucked into the media spotlight by somepublic event or activity has at least some ability to fight back when trulyprivate places, conversations or matters are publicized."[2 ] In Berger v.Hanlon, 129 F.3d 5 5 (9th Cir. 97 (1979): "[if]a newspaper lawfully obtains truthful information about a matter of publicsignificance then state officials may not constitutionally punishpublication of the information, absent a need to further a state interestof the highest order." Dendy sums up this field when he says "many courts provide media withthe extraordinarily broad newsworthiness defense, leaving the publicdisclosure tort effectively impotent."[1 ] Basically, public officials,public figures, and even private persons involved in stories which havepublic interest have a good defense. Hayes, 4 8U.S. Supp. [9]Gillmore, 1 8. 1995). 665 (Ct. 1986).Time, Inc. Host International, Inc., 125 F.3d 8 6 (9th Cir. RIGHTS LAW Secs. [16]Ben F. . 1997).Wolfson v. 1984).Smith v. Sec. Forest City Publishing Co., 415 U.S. Liability did attach in some egregious cases before 199 . Sullivan, 376 U.S. App. Supp. risks of civil law suits for invasionsof privacy arising out of newsgathering, news reporting and broadcastingactivities. In one, Wendt v. 1994).Sullivan v. The Supreme Court overturned a jury verdict against thenewspaper involved on First Amendment grounds, quoting at 533 earlierlanguage from Smith v. . 1995), the 7thCircuit had permitted deceptive techniques to be used by reporters to gainaccess to a fraudulent eye care clinic which they exposed because it saidat 1355 that journalism "is entitled to all the safeguards with which theSupreme Court has surrounded liability for defamation . Tribune Entertainment Co., 196 F.3d 215 (7th Cir. 1997), the 9th Cir. Outside the scope of the paper are aplethora of court decisions and statutes dealing with other aspects ofprivacy such as the confidentiality of court records and the anonymity ofparties, witnesses and jurors. (1997).Renwick v. Gaynes and Harvey L.Zuckman, Mass Communication Law in a Nutshell (St. Giddings, "The Right of Privacy inFlorida in the Age of Technology and the Twenty-First Century: A Need forProtection from Private and Commercial Intrusion," Florida State UniversityLaw Review 25 (Fall 1997): 21. . [1 ]Geoff Dendy, "The Newsworthiness Defense to the Public DisclosureTort," Kentucky Bar Journal 85 (Fall 1996): 148. had been fabricated," that his nameand likeness had been misappropriated and awarded him damages of$15 , .[22] Some interesting private fact cases arose from outing, the practiceof some gay and lesbian organizations of revealing the homosexualinclinations of public figures. As in the case ofdefamatory torts, the actor must either have had knowledge of the falsityof the publicized matter or have acted with reckless disregard of itsfalsity. 1996), journalists from ABC's Prime Live program used falseidentification to obtain employment at a Food Lion supermarket and tookhidden photos of unsanitary conditions and unsavory labor practices there.Jury verdicts, including $5.5 million in punitive damages, were awarded tothe markets. 189 ): 193-22 .Wendt v. Berkeley Publishers, 496 S.E.2d 637 (S.C. a visual image,sound recording, or other physical impression of the victim of the victimfor profit."[17] California State Senator Tom Hayden proposed a bill whichwould require photographers to observe a 5 foot safe zone between them andtheir celebrity subjects. 1367 (S.D.N.Y. App. App. 438 (1928).Overton, Ben and Katherine E. "Privacy and Telecommunications." Wake Forest Law Review 33 (Spring 1998): 1-49.Cohen v. Messner, 286 N.Y.S.2d 832 (N.Y. Onassis, 497 F.2d 986 (2d Cir. Mediacracy: American Political Parties in the Communications Age (Garden City: Doubleday, 1975).Pines, Deborah. [12]Ghormley, 1387-1388. Time, Inc., 449 F.2d 245 (9th Cir. RobertWelch, Inc., 418 U.S. The leading case establishing the defense that thematerial disclosed was already public is Sipple v. In Time, Inc. [13]Gillmore, 9 . . after trial, 618 F. According to Ghormley, thetort of privacy generally began a downward spiral after the Hill case; andthe "false light privacy" [tort] has been dubbed 'the light thatfailed.'"[11] A number of states, including North Carolina and Missouri,abolished the false light invasion of privacy tort in the 198 s. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1997), and Anonsen v. Barron, Todd F. Some of these 'business as usual'cases are as follows. Paul: West Publishing, 1964),831-832. 1997).Cantrell v. Capital Cities/ABC (Food Lion I), 987 F. "The Newsworthiness Defense to the Public Disclosure Tort." Kentucky Bar Journal 85 (Fall 1996): 147-168.Desnick v. Supp. The key elements of this tort are illegal entry or pryinginto someone's property or space, such as their home, bank account, privateaffairs or concerns. News and Observer, 312 S.E.2d 4 5 (N.C. Hearst Corp., 878 S.W.2d 577 (Tex. TheSupreme Court of South Carolina in Doe v. Developments in Privacy Tort Law in the 199 s Privacy tort law in the 9 s has been characterized by two conflictingtrends. CODE, Sec. 2135 (1994)."Appeals Court Upholds False Light Suit Filed Against Tabloid for Photo." News Media & the Law (Winter 1993): 4 -41.Bast, Carol M. [22]Eastwood v. Group W Productions, Inc., 98 DJ D.A.R. . v. The mediahave changed, but are as intrusive, perhaps more so, than ever. Dee, Martin J. The standard for when a publication is highly offensive was statedby that same court in Diaz v. Evolution Before 199 of the Right of Privacy. 1994).----------------------- 1 Cartwright,654 N.E.2d 1 64 (Ind. Gillmore et alsay that "in recent years plaintiffs have won very few reported cases,"usually because consent is obtained in advance and where it is not, thecases are settled quickly.[8] The newsgathering privilege, which is discussed further below,generally protects journalists and the media when they use photographs oridentities of persons in bona fide news stories, whether they are publicfigures or private persons. Even celebrities have the exclusive right to exploit commerciallytheir name and likeness and to prevent others from doing so. [25]Carol M. The court held that no one should have anexpectation of privacy when they talk to a reporter. American Broadcasting Co., 44 F.3d 1345 (7th Cir. Forest City PublishingCo., 415 U.S. 1985), cert. 2448, 1 5th Cong. Hayes, 4 8 U.S. "The Right of Privacy in Florida in the Age of Technology and the Twenty-First Century: A Need for Protection from Private and Commercial Intrusion." Florida State University Law Review 25 (Fall 1997): 25-56.Philips, Kevin. 762, 767(1983) to be when "publicity is so intimate and unwarranted as to outragethe community's notion of decency . Group W Productions, Inc., 98 DJ D.A.R.5679. Co., 269 Cal.Rptr. Florida had a statute similar toGeorgia's. [2 ]Philip Carrizosa, "Unusual TV Subject Can Sue Over Privacy," LosAngeles Daily Journal, 2 June 1998, 11. [and] constitute[s] a 'morbid andsensational prying' into private lives for its own sake." The holdings in a number of Supreme Court cases have greatly weakenedthis cause of action. The Supreme Court dismissed the case byadopting at 387-388 a very broad standard for when a publication dealt with"matters of public interest." In other cases, such as Gertz v. Hearst Corp., 878 S.W.2d 577 (Tex. Chronicle PublishingCo., 2 1 Cal.Rptr. 97 (1979).Spahn v. Transp. St. National Enquirer, Inc., 123 F.3d 1249 (9th Cir. PRIVACY ISSUES IN JOURNALISM IN THE 199 S ABSTRACT For most of the 2 th century, certainly through the 196 s, the civiltort of invasion of privacy in various forms expanded the liability of themedia under state law. v. A newspaper published the name ofan individual, Oliver Sipple, who had helped prevent the assassination ofPresident Gerald Ford, and the fact that he was gay. Supp.1413 (E.D. 1995).Food Lion, Inc. "The Right to Privacy." Harvard Law Review 4 (15 Dec. 524 (1989), a reporterobtained a rape victim's name which was inadvertently included in a policereport and included it in an article. 1984), and Sullivan v.Pulitzer Broadcasting Co., 7 9 S.W.2d 475 (Mo. 1364 (S.D. Supp. A cause of action for private facts will lie when what is disclosedis true, even though it is not defamatory. That statute was thendeclared unconstitutional by the Florida Supreme Court in State v. 1998) found that commission of a violent crime between jailinmates was a matter of public significance to warrant publication. 1995, 8 8. 1993), cert. Daily Mail Publishing Co., 443 U.S. For example, Art. United States, 277 U.S. after trial, 618 F. 1217(M.D.N.C. B.J.F., 491 U.S. Globe Communications, 648 So.2d 11 (Fla. [8]Gillmore, 1 5. 1217 (M.D.N.C. 1995) and 951 F. One of the early cases, Spahn v. Paul: West Publishing, 1994.Cate, Fred H. Hanlon, 129 F.3d 5 5 (9th Cir. Overton and Katherine E. 323 (1974), and Cantrell v. 23.Florida Star v. App. 469 (1975).Dendy, Geoff. Auth., 9 7 F. Chronicle Publishing Co., 2 1 Cal.Rptr. In her 1997 review of cases, Pines says the courts have issuedinjunctions "only in the most egregious instances" of intrusion.[19] Nevertheless, the media have been subjected to adverse rulings in anumber of recent privacy intrusion cases. They are permitted touse stolen materials so long as they did not instigate the intrusion orknow the materials were stolen. Ct. NBC later broadcast the scene onthe evening news. 762 (1983).Dietemann v. Gillmore, Jerome A. 811 (M.D.N.C. Paul: West Publishing,1994), 114-115. AmericanBroadcasting Companies, Inc.,, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 323 (1974).Ghormley, Ken. Cowles Media Company, 113 S.Ct. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. Auth., 9 7 F. American Broadcasting Co., 44 F.3d 1345 (7th Cir. 1995).Olmstead v. 1995): 391). . 1984). 5679.Sipple v. 2513 (1994).Cox Broadcasting v. 524.Florida, FLA.STAT.ANN. Donahue,857 S.W.2d 7 (Tex. National Broadcasting Co., 187 Cal. . St. Pa. Paul: West Publishing, 1984.MacLean, Pamela A. 1997).Facts on File 26 Oct. Intrusion. [24]Moretti, 865. 189 ): 2 5. Lewis, 924 F. . [21]"Appeals Court Upholds False Light Suit Against Tabloid for Photo,"News Media & the Law (Winter 1993): 4 -41. Pulitzer Broadcasting Co., 7 9 S.W.2d 475 (Mo. Anotherdoctrine frequently invoked by the courts to absolve the media ofresponsibility is the plain view doctrine, which basically holds thatanything in public, even intimate personal details, is fair game. MacLean, "9th Circuit Narrows Expectation-of-PrivacyTest," Los Angeles Daily Journal, 3 July 1997, 3. I, Sec. Howell v. 374 (1974).Warren, Samuel and Louis D. In a classic case, theCalifornia Supreme Court found actionable the publication 11 years later ofan accurate article about an individual's conviction for hijacking a truckin Briscoe v. Very similar to a defamatory statement, afalse light portrayal involves one which casts the victim before the publicfalsely, is highly offensive to a reasonable person, and causes personal oremotional distress, as opposed to damage to reputation. [5]T. Nobles v. . 379 (Ct. State v. Bast, "Publication of the Name of a Sexual Assault Victim:The Collision of Privacy and Freedom of the Press," Criminal Law Bulletin31 (Sept.-Oct. 199 ). I, Sec. App. Cate, "Privacy and Telecommunications," Wake Forest LawReview 33 (Spring 1998): 21-22. [raising theissue of] how to square the rights of the public with the rights of themedia?" [15] New competitive pressures beset the industry as a result ofthe rise of tabloid journalism and a multiplicity of broadcasting outletson cable television channels and the Internet. 1973).Gertz v. Minneapolis: West Publishing, 1996. Supp. Terry. Barton Carter, Juliet L. In 1997, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found thata flight attendant could not maintain a privacy action against ABC forhaving repeated on the air comments a reporter secretly taped of remarksshe made concerning a conversation she had with O. [26]Gillmore, 99; Cain v. 1992): 1335-1442.Gillmore, Donald M., Jerome A. Lewis, 924 F. 811 (M.D.N.C. 1984).Restatement (Second) of Torts (1977).Shulman v. v. denied, 479 U.S.1 88 (1987), and Aisenson v. 3349 (Deering Supp. 1971), a reporter gainedaccess through misrepresentation to the home of a fake faith healer who wassurreptitiously tape recorded and filmed. Oakland Tribune, Inc., 188 Cal.Rptr. GlobeCommunications, 648 So.2d 11 (Fla. See Howell v. Few cases went to trial, but in principle,revelation in public of closet homosexuality fit the definition of anembarrassing public fact which "exposes the individual to hatred,prejudice, and discrimination."[23] Moretti says that "labelling a personhomosexual without his or her consent constitutes a denial of that person'sright to self-identity."[24] Most cases continue to hold the media free to publish any facts whichhave a logical nexus to a story of public interest. 1996).----------------------- [1]Samuel D. denied, 114 S.Ct. App. United States, 277 U.S. TheCourt held that on free speech (First Amendment) grounds a state cannotimpose sanctions on the accurate publication of information taken frompublic records. [6]W. App.3d 1463, 232 Cal.Rptr.668 (1986), a California Court of Appeals found NBC liable when itscameramen entered a private home with paramedics and filmed their attemptedresuscitation of a man who had suffered a heart attack. An appellate courtheld that no private facts privacy action lay against the newspaper becauseSipple's sexual inclination was well known in the San Francisco gaycommunity. The case is on appeal to the 7th Circuit. 1998): 1 93. Time, Inc., 449 F.2d 245 (9th Cir. This research paper deals with the principal legalissues faced by the communications industry or mass media in the 199 s inrelation to privacy concerns --i.e. thatstate privacy actions have been effectively quashed in nearly everyinstance when they have come in conflict with the constitutional guaranteesof a free press."[12] Gillmore et al say that "the natural debate over thevalue of privacy interests and the press's role of informing the public haslargely been decided in favor of the press."[13] They commented in 1996that "successful privacy law suits are extremely rare."[14] A number of public commentators have noted that the media has becomeowned by large private conglomerates. Cartwright, 654 N.E.2d 1 64 (Ind. 1992), 139 . During the 199 s, some federal and state courts tightenedrestrictions against particularly egregious invasions of privacy inresponse to growing public concern that the media may have been accordedtoo much latitude, notwithstanding their preferred constitutional statusunder the First Amendment. Three interesting misappropriation cases in the 9 s illustrate thatthis tort still has life. 1997).Keeton, W. Cohn, 42 U.S. v. [23]Barbara Moretti, "Outing: Justifiable or Unwarranted Invasion ofPrivacy? In Wolfson v. 1997);Facts on File, 26 Oct. 1998).Eastwood v. [3]Fred H. The risk of this exposure is an essential incident oflife in a society which places a primary value on freedom of speech andpress." According to Gillmore et al, "persistence by reporters attemptingto gather news, even if they repeatedly telephone, drive by a person'shome, and follow the person usually does not rise to the level of an act ofintrusion."[7] Reporters are protected when they act with the consent orpermission of the owners of the property involved. In a previous case,Desnick v. 469 (1975), anaction brought in part on private facts invasion of privacy grounds, areporter obtained from a clerk of the criminal court the name of a rapevictim which was broadcast on television news, despite a Georgia statutemaking the publication of the names of rape victims a misdemeanor. 1995).Deteresa v. App.3d 1463, 232 Cal.Rptr. 665 (Ct. Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts. 1997), the 9th Circuit found that a Montanarancher had a privacy cause of action and a trespass action against CNNwhose photographers accompanied federal agents onto his ranch where he wasarrested for poisoning eagles. In the Food Lion, Inc. Warren and Louis D. . Donahue, 857 S.W.2d 7 (Tex. 51-52 (McKinney 1992).New York Times v. 379 (Ct.App. Host International, Inc., 125F.3d 8 6 (9th Cir. "9th Circuit Narrows Expectation-of-Privacy Test." Los Angeles Daily Journal, 3 July 1997, 3.Miller v. Supp. 652B through 652E of the Restatement(Second) of Torts (1977). (1997) which was aimed at aggressivephotojournalists and would create a special federal crime of harassmentdefined as "persistently physically following or chasing a victim, incircumstances where the victim has a reasonable expectation of privacy andhas taken reasonable steps to ensure that privacy, for the purpose ofcapturing by a camera or sound recording instrument . Capital Cities/ABC Cases (Food Lion I andFood Lion II, 987 F. 438, 479 (1928) as "the mostcomprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized man."[1]Warren and Brandeis said that "the press is overstepping in every directionthe obvious bounds of propriety and of decency."[2] In fact, the tort ofinvasion of privacy so highly valued by Brandeis, and other attemptsprotect it through regulation have, according to Cate, been "significantlyinfluenced by the importance placed by society on . Hill case mentioned above, the plaintiffs, theHill family who had been held hostage by criminals, sued for theirportrayal in a false light by Life. In the Time, Inc. According toOverton and Giddings, "recent polls reflect that eighty percent ofAmericans believe that they have lost control over their personalinformation and that ninety percent favor legislation to provide additionalprivacy protection."[16] In the wake of Princess Diana's death which may have been due to herpursuit by overzealous paparazzi, a crescendo of criticism of aggressivetactics in press and television coverageappeared. Philips said in 1975 that the "mediarepresents an emerging concentration of power akin to the railroads,trusts, and monopolies of the late-nineteenth century . 2448, 1 5th Cong. Fundamentals of Mass Communication Law. 1 88 (1987).Galella v. RIGHTS LAW, Secs. SeeRenwick v. 1996), the network television magazine show Inside Editionwas enjoined to stop following and taping the subjects of its story, twoprivate health care executives, the Wolfsons, whom they also accosted for'ambush' interviews. Deteresa v. App. Portrayal in a False Light. "Outing: Justifiable or Unwarranted Invasion of Privacy? . Berkeley Publishers, 496 S.E.2d637 (S.C. [2]Warren and Brandeis, 196. In that case, television cameramen filmed a woman, who ultimatelybecame a paraplegic, while she was in a rescue helicopter, en route to ahospital. 668 (1986).Moretti, Barbara. Thereafter, under various constitutional decisionsof the Supreme Court expanding the scope of the First Amendment guaranteesof a free press, the media enjoyed considerable freedom to investigate andreport and/or broadcast events as they saw fit, subject to the continuedvitality of certain limitations relating to the protection of personalprivacy under state tort law which continued to operate within the penumbraof federal First Amendment jurisprudence. Barton, Juliet L. Thistort has been codified in a number of states, including California, CIV.CODE Sec. The Private Facts Tort As a Remedy for Disclosure of SexualOrientation." Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal 11 (Fall 1993): 872. Reader's Digest Association, Inc., 4 Cal.3d 529, 483 P.2d 34 (1971).Cain v. regardless ofthe name of the tort." The Supreme Court did not act on any privacy cases in the 9 s otherthan Cohen v. According to Bast, in statecases involving the publication of material from state criminal records inrape and other cases, "the courts invariably sided with the press andrefused to hold media defendants liable for damages for invasion ofprivacy."[25] A number of other states have abolished the false light privacyaction, including Mississippi, New York, Ohio and Texas.[26] Conclusion Protection of personal privacy has come full circle in the centurywhich has passed since Warren and Brandeis wrote their landmark articlewhich was concerned with the adverse impact of yellow journalism. 1367 (S.D.N.Y. The focus of this article is on the restrictions placed by state tortlaw, as modified by federal constitutional (First Amendment) law, on themedia's journalistic activities. 374, 388 (1974), Justice William Brennan commented that "exposureof the self to others in varying degrees is a concomitant of life in acivilized community. In Cox Broadcasting v. Capital Cities/ABC (Food Lion II), 951 F. [4]William L. 1413 (E.D. TribuneEntertainment Co., 196 F.3d 215 (7th Cir. 2135 (1994). Even though news coverage is generally immune frommisappropriation suits because its purpose is to provide information ratherthan to promote sales of products or services, the 8th Circuit upheld theaward by the jury of over $1.5 million in damages against the tabloid Sunin Arkansas on a misappropriation theory (and a false light theory) when itreported that a woman had lost her job at the age of 97 because she waspregnant![21] The 9th Circuit affirmed a jury verdict in a federal DistrictCourt in Los Angeles in favor of actor Clint Eastwood which found that "astory in the National Enquirer . 199 ).Anonsen v. The show's reporters had surreptitiously videotapedthe Wolfsons at work and in their home using a telephoto lens and apowerful 'shotgun' microphone. The alleged rape by William Kennedy Smith of a woman at the Kennedyfamily compound at Palm Beach in March 1991 provided the sequel to the Cohnand Florida Star cases decided by the Supreme Court. v. Oakland Tribune, Inc., 188 Cal.Rptr. App. Sec. 1996).Frazier v. 1967). 23 ofthe Florida Constitution provides: "Every natural person has the right tobe let alone and free from governmental intrusion into his private lifeexcept as otherwise provided herein." Causes of action for invasion of privacy break down into four types:(i) unreasonable intrusion upon the seclusion of another; (ii)appropriation of the other's name or likeness; (iii) unreasonable publicitygiven to the other's private life (private facts); and (iv) publicity thatunreasonably places the other in a false light before the public, which aredescribed, respectively, in Secs. 1364 (S.D. [17] "Privacy, Photography, and the Press," Harvard Law Review 111(Feb. 254 (1964).Nobles v. 1985), cert. [18]Pamela A. In 189 , Samuel Warrenand Louis Brandeis defined the right of privacy as "the right of theindividual to be left alone" which Brandeis extolled in his dissent inOlmstead v. Supp. 1993), cert. 254 (1975), the Supreme Court imported into false lightprivacy cases a requirement from defamation cases such asNew York Times v. reversed and sent back to a jury fordetermination the issue of whether the robotic figures used by a chain ofairport bars were confusingly similar to popular actors in the televisionseries Cheers. App. Reader's Digest Association, Inc., 4 Cal.3d 529, 483 P.2d 34(1971). J. If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again: Search for: or Click here to request an essay written just for you.