Chapter 5: Privacy Flashcards
Rights to Privacy in the Bill of Rights
1st amendment: privacy of belief
3rd amendment: privacy of the home (quartering)
4th amendment: privacy against unreasonable search and seizure
5th amendment: privacy of self-knowledge
9th amendment: acknowledges the existence of other rights
Griswold v. Connecticut
Facts: a women’s clinic used a test case to challenge the constitutionality of a Connecticut law that prevented contraceptive devices
Holding: SCOTUS ruled that the law was unconstitutional because it violated the right to privacy implied in the 14th amendment Due Process Clause
Significance: established a constitutional right to privacy that was upheld in many cases
4 Types of Common Law Privacy
- Intrusion on Seclusion: Invasion of a private space in order to gather information
- Disclosure of a Private Matter: publicizing a private matter to the world at large that is offensive and of no legitimate concern to the public
- False Light: an expression that is either factually untrue or conveys truthful information that carries a false implication
- Appropriation: using another person’s name or likeness for profit, without their permission
Statutory Privacy
- State Constitutions
- Federal Legislation: FERPA, HIPPA, etc
Galella v. Onassis
Facts: The Secret Service filed an injunction against Galella for constantly following and photographing Jacqueline
Holding: an injunction was granted because Ganella’s actions were a form of harassment not because they violated her right to privacy
Significance: established that there is not an expectation of privacy in a public place and thus you can be recorded and photographed
Dietmann v. Time
Facts: Life magazine went undercover to record the work of Dietmann ( a fake doctor) and the footage was used to arrest Dietmann. Dietmann sued Time for intrusion on seclusion
Holding: a circuit court sided with Dietmann
Significance: the 1st amendment does not protect journalists if they intrude on seclusion to gather information
Wilson v. Layne
Facts: The Wilson family sued the police for allowing reporters to observe a warranted search of their home
Holding: SCOTUS sided with Wilson but did not punish the officers or reporters because the precedent was hazy
Significance: only police may be present during a warranted search
Barber v. Time
Facts: Time used a photo of Barber in the hospital to supplement a story about her unique eating disorder. Barber sued for disclosure of a private matter
Holding: Missouri Supreme Court sided with Barber
Significance: a person’s medical history is private unless it is considered a danger to others
Lambert v. Dow Chemical
Facts: Lambert sued his employer for using photos of his workplace injury in a safety seminar without his permission
Holding: Louisiana appellate court sided with Lambert
Significance: using a medical photograph of a person without their consent is a violation of their privacy
Gill v. Curtis Publishing
Facts: an unflattering photo of the Gills was used in a magazine article titled “love at first sight”. Gill sued for false light
Holding: SCOTUS sided with Gills saying that the article was not representative of what was happening in the photo
Significance: publishers can’t connect misleading words to photos
Gill v. Hearst Publishing
Facts: unflattering photo of the Gills was used in a magazine article titled “the world could not revolve without love”. Gill sued for false light
Holding: SCOTUS sided with the publisher because the title of the article accurately represented the photo
Significance: a publisher is only liable for false light if they portray someone in an inaccurate way
Time v. Hill
Facts: Time magazine wrote an article comparing the play “Desperate Hours” with the Hill home invasion it was based on. The Hill family sued Time for portraying the real and fictional versions as identical.
Holding: SCOTUS sided with Time because the magazine did not publish with knowing falsity or reckless disregard for the truth
Significance: SCOTUS applied the actual malice test to false light cases
Cantrell v. Forest City Publishing
Facts: the defendant published an article after interviewing a bridge collapse victim’s family. The story invented an interview with the wife and portrayed the family as victims. The family sued for false light.
Holding: SCOTUS sides with Cantrell because the paper violated the actual malice test
Significance: SCOTUS upholds the use of the actual malice test in false-light cases
Spahn v Messner
Facts: Messner publish a biography of Spahn that attributed him with false accomplishments. Sphan sued for false light.
Holding: A state court sided with Spahn
Significance: a publisher can be punished for falsities even if they improve the plaintiff’s reputation
Braun v Flynt
Facts: Chic magazine (owned by Flynt) ran a story about Braun who worked with swimming pigs. Braun sued for false light.
Holding: a circuit court sided with Braun. The section that the article was published in implied that this wholesome job was sexual and over-sexualized Braun
Significance: the context of speech can qualify it for a false light suit
Right of Publicity
an intellectual property right that protects against the misappropriation of a person’s name, likeness, or other indicia of personal identity
Laws found in many states
Zachchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting
Facts: Scripps broadcasted a full-length recording of Zacchini’s unique human cannonball performance. Zacchini sued for appropriation.
Holding: SCOTUS sided with Zacchini because his commercial stake in the act had not been recognized
Significance: performers have a right to their acts and others must get permission to show them
Carson v. Heres Johnny Portable Toilets
Facts: A portable toilet company named itself after Johnny Carson’s famous intro and used the slogan “world’s foremost comodian” to advertise its products. Carson sued for appropriation.
Holding: a circuit court sided with Carson citing the plaintiff’s right to publicity
Significance: the right of publicity was sighted to protect the financial interests of celebrities
The Booth Rule
An exception to appropriation: A magazine can use photos of celebrities from its articles to promote itself so long as the photos are indicative of the magazine’s actual content
3 defenses in a privacy case
Consent:
1. burden of proof is on the defendant
2. The consent must be as broad as the invasion that follows
3. alteration to photographs nullifies consent
4. not required for individuals in public places
Newsworthiness: information about a well-known public figure or information about those involved in criminal behavior
Constitutional Defense:
1. actual malice
2. The first amendment protects the right to publish information from public records
Neff v. Time
Facts: Un unflattering photo of Neff was used in an article about crazy fans. Neft sues for false light.
Holding: a PA court sided with Time because the photo was taken in a public place and Neff implied his consent
Significance: privacy is not guaranteed in public spaces
Sipple v. Chronicle Publishing
Facts: Sipple saved the president during an assassination attempt and was subsequently outed by newspapers. He sued for disclosure of a private matter.
Holding: SCOTUS sided with the publisher claiming that the information was newsworthy
Significance: privacy is not guaranteed in matter of public interest
Cox Broadcasting v. Cohn
Facts: Cox Broadcasting ran a story that included the name of a rape victim, which had been obtained from public records. The father of the victim sued for invasion of privacy.
Holding: SCOTUS ruled in favor of Cox
Significance: Reporters have the right to publish public records.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
- the defendant acted intentionally or recklessly
- the defendant’s conduct was extreme and outrageous
- the defendant’s act caused distress
- the plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress
Hustler Magazine v. Falwell
Facts: Falwell, a religious leader, l sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress after Hustler posted a parody article about Falwell’s “first time”
Holding: SCOTUS sides with the magazine and applies the actual malice test to emotional distress cases
Significance: the actual malice test is applied to emotional distress cases, effectively eliminating the emotional distress loophole
Snyder v. Phelps
Facts: the Snyder family sued Phelps for intrusion on seclusion and emotional distress for protesting at their son’s funeral.
Holding: SCOTUS sided with Phelps because the protest was a matter of public concern (political speech)
Significance: The court established that speech cannot be punished simply because it is deemed “outrageous”
