Privacy Torts & Newsworthiness

• This explores invasion of privacy torts related to publication, where newsworthiness can be a defense, raising ethical questions for journalism.

Disclosure of Embarrassing Private Facts

• One is liable for invasion of privacy when giving publicity to someone's private life.
• The matter must be highly offensive to a reasonable person.
• The matter must not be of legitimate public concern.

Highly Offensive

• Kubach, an AIDS patient, appeared on a TV show with his image digitized, but was recognized due to a technical glitch.
• After the incident, Kubach suffered severe emotional distress and social isolation.
• Kubach sued the TV station for disclosure of embarrassing private facts and won a jury award, which was mostly affirmed on appeal.

State Privacy Statutes

• These statutes protect against publishing specific facts like names of juvenile offenders and sexual crime victims.
• They can pose legal and ethical challenges for reporters.
• In Cohn, a reporter disclosed the name of a rape victim, violating a Georgia statute.
• The victim's father sued and initially won, but the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decision.
• The Supreme Court held that once truthful information is in public court documents, its publication cannot be sanctioned.
• Even with First Amendment protection, journalists must ethically consider publishing embarrassing private facts.
• In Oklahoma, news media defied a court order by publishing the name and photo of a juvenile suspect.
• The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Oklahoma Supreme Court's affirmation of the judge's order, citing the presence of the press at the hearing with state's implicit approval.
• The Supreme Court protected the publication of a judge's name under investigation, emphasizing public interest in governmental affairs as per Landmark Communications, Inc.
• A newspaper published the name of a juvenile suspect, which was protected due to the information being lawfully obtained and of public significance according to Smith
• The Court also noted the state law was narrow in only restricting newspapers, not other media.
• In Florida Star v. B.J.F., a newspaper published a rape victim's name obtained from a police report available in the pressroom.
• The victim sued and won initially, but the U.S. Supreme Court reversed, citing the accuracy of the report and the lawful acquisition of the name.
• Dissenters argued for protecting victims' privacy and criticized the publication of the victim's name.

Newsworthiness Defense

• The U.S. Court of Appeals addressed a case involving the disclosure of private facts related to a truck driver's drug test.
• The court considered whether personal revelations about Kennedy were in the public interest and found that they were.
• Reporting statistics would have had less impact than including Kennedy's specific results.
• Newsworthiness can defend against accusations of disclosing embarrassing private facts, though it is questionable against intrusion upon seclusion.

Intercepted Communications

• Bartnicki v. Vopper involved a journalist's disclosure of information from an illegal wiretap related to a teachers' contract negotiation.
• A radio talk-show host played a tape of a conversation between union leaders, obtained from an anonymous source.
• The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court that the First Amendment protected airing the tapes due to public interest.
• The Court referenced Florida Star v. B.J.F., Landmark Communications, Inc., and Smith
• The negotiations were considered a matter of public concern, and the individuals were involved in public debate.
• Dissenters argued for protecting individual privacy against the broadcast of cellular telephone conversations.
• Newsworthiness may justify disclosing embarrassing private facts.
• Peavy clarifies Bartnicki v. Vopper, stating it only applies if the journalist had no role in the illicit recording.
• A reporter, Riggs, encouraged illegal cellphone recordings from Harman.
• WFAA-TV aired stories based on these recordings, leading to charges against Peavy.
• The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, stating WFAA and Riggs had participation concerning the interceptions.
• Unlike the broadcaster in, Riggs and WFAA-TV “had some participation concerning the interceptions” and therefore were covered by the statutes’ prohibitions against use and disclosure of intercepted conversations, the First Amendment notwithstanding.
• Intrusion upon seclusion and disclosure of embarrassing private facts are common privacy lawsuits journalists may face.