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