Eric Hammell

2/7/99

Media Law and Ethics

Synthesis #3

CONFLICT: First Amendment freedom of the press (and to publish) and the public’s right to know vs. individuals right to privacy.

PRECEDENTS: Roberson v. Rochester Folding Box Co. (1902), Barbieri v. News-Journal Co. (1963), Time v. Hill (1967), Dietemann v. Time Inc (1971), Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (1988).

THREAD: In Roberson v. Rochester Folding Box Co, the court realized the need for an U. S. privacy law. Barbieri v. News-Journal Co established the four kinds of torts under the invasion of privacy issue. Time v. Hill was the first false light case dealing with the mass media. Dietemann v. Time Inc, an intrusion lawsuit, established legal precedent for the use of electronic devices in reporting. Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, Reaffirmed New York Times v. Sullivan and changed the legalities involved in an emotional distress claim.

EXPLICATION: In Roberson v. Rochester Folding Box Co, a woman was unable to sue for the unauthorized use of her likeness on the grounds that there was no established privacy law. (LMC 305) This signaled a need for such law(s), which could be established by individual states. Many states did indeed begin to create privacy laws based closely on the Roberson case. Being the first privacy case Roberson was the beginning of privacy law in the U.S.

In Barbieri v. News-Journal Co, the "Delaware Supreme Court summarized Dean Prosser’s analysis of the kinds of actions to be included by the law of privacy." (LMC 306) The four torts were intrusion, false light, appropriation, and publication of private matters. (LMC 306) More than one of these elements could exist, but the court finally had a workable set of categories for invasion of privacy.

The single most important privacy case in U.S. law history, Time v. Hill was the "first invasion of privacy case dealing with the mass media to be decided by the Supreme Court of the United States." (LMC 308) False light, the area of privacy law most similar to defamation, included four components: publication and identification, substantial falsity to be proven by plaintiff, must be "highly offensive to a reasonable person", and "the defendant must have ‘had knowledge of or acted in reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the other would be placed.’" (LMC 308-309) Hill gave precedence to the freedom to publish over that of the right to privacy. (LMC 315) Borrowing heavily from New York Times v. Sullivan, Hill established that persons in the news must prove "actual malice" to recover false light damages whether the plaintiff is a public or private individual. (LMC 316-318) "The pivotal question (in Time v. Hill) is whether the offending publication is about a matter of legitimate public interest." (LMC 318)

Dietemann v. Time Inc was an important intrusion privacy law case. Here the court established that concealed "miniature cameras and electronic devices" could be found intrusive on ones privacy. (LMC 349-350) Setting an important precedent for modern investigative reporters, Judge Hufstedler wrote, "The First Amendment has never been construed to accord newsmen immunity from torts or crimes committed during the course of newsgathering." (LMC 350)

In Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, the court upheld the right to satirically criticize public officials, calling Hustler magazine "at best a distant cousin to political cartoons." (LMC 370) The court upheld that no logical human being could believe the ad parody to be true, therefore lessening the amount of damage that could be done by it. (LMC 369) Hustler Magazine v. Falwell affirmed many of the principles found in New York Times v. Sullivan and "cut off the main avenues of the emotional distress claim" that was an emerging tort and threat to the media. (LMC 370-371, 368)