Quote:
Originally Posted by jfrog
May I have an example?
|
Plenty of cases I could cite, but that would make for some mighty boring reading.
Here is an excerpt from an article:
Public disclosure of private facts occurs when a writer discloses private and embarrassing facts about a living person that are not of "public concern." First Amendment rights protect publication of items of legitimate pubic concern, such as the details of a crime. Ask yourself, is the story newsworthy? If so, the public's interest in knowing about the incident outweighs the privacy factor. If, however, the matter is not one of public concern, and is one that most people would find highly offensive, there is an invasion of privacy. For example, publicizing the fact that your brother-in-law has failed to pay his mortgage for three months, although true, would be an invasion of his privacy. Other examples would be details of a person's sexual problems, physical or mental ailments. Problems often arise when writing about a real-life event: in such cases, you should obtain written releases from the "ordinary people" who are only peripherally involved with the newsworthy event.
While this article addresses the new area of false light when publishing it still is a valid principle in some states. Which is why I am a great proponent of "it depends".
For example, the present case was made worse by the pastor's obvious personal interest, if there were an overwhelming need to state something publicly like warning parents of a known child molester it would probably be ok, because it would be lacking the malicious element. On the other hand'- "it depends"
Threaded Mode
