Term
| Where did the right to privacy come from? |
|
Definition
the US Constitution - the right to be left alone and free from unwarranted governmental intrusion (4th amendment)
Tort Law - the right to be free from unwarranted publicity |
|
|
Term
| What are the 4 torts of privacy? |
|
Definition
| publication of private facts, intrusion, false light, commercialization/appropriation |
|
|
Term
| Publication of private facts |
|
Definition
| (tort of privacy) information that is actually private and the spread of the information is highly offensive. ex. sexual orientation, sex change, private romantic entourage |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| (tort of privacy) physical or electronic intrusion into one's private quarters |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| (tort of privacy) the publication of facts which place a person in false light, even though the facts themselves may not be defamatory |
|
|
Term
| Appropriation (commercialization) |
|
Definition
| (tort of privacy) the unauthorized use of someone's name or likeliness to obtain some benefits |
|
|
Term
| Elements for a private fact case? |
|
Definition
| private fact, publication, highly offensive to a reasonable person, not of legitimate concern to the public |
|
|
Term
| What would you sue for in a private fact case? |
|
Definition
| shame, humiliation, mental anguish, intimate information, shocking |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| started at UCF, man took pics of women's butts, site is closed but is it illegal? you are in public, who would know who's butt it is? |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| 1939 - invasion of privacy - TIME published story about Dorothy Barber's unusual eating disorder, caused her to lose weight despite mass consumption of food. Photo taken against her will while she was unconscious in hospital bed. Condition not contagious, no need to publish to inform people in contact with her (not newsworthy). COULD have informed public about condition without revealing identity. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Defenses to a private fact case |
|
Definition
1. First Amendment - protects most truthful info lawfully acquired if not highly offensive to reasonable person and of legitimate concern to public
2. level of newsworthiness - public records or occurrences, strange and unusual, newsworthiness over time
3. consent given (or not)
*TRUTH NOT A DEFENSE |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| signed release saying okay to use statement or photograph |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| someone knows you are recording/interviewing them; "I am recording, is that ok with you?"; if you are at a newsworthy event, implied consent because you are attending |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| sued ex and company distributing sex tape for invasion of privacy. didn't win - posing for camera/"how do I look in this light?" |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| someone broke into their house and took sex tape, entered into a settlement. judge dismissed the case - gave up their rights when they agreed to let IEG webcast the footage |
|
|
Term
| Sex tapes/invasion of privacy |
|
Definition
| when actively participating in making of sex tape, it's not really private. more often than not, will be leaked |
|
|
Term
| Gritzke v. Girls Gone Wild |
|
Definition
| on the cover of Mardi Gras edition, sued for invasion of privacy and lost (she was in a public place) but won appropriation and settled out of court |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| only takes one person (and person being intruded upon), highly offensive to reasonable person, doesn't have to be widely published, *reasonable expectations of privacy (toilet, hospital room, etc.), intentional invasion of person's private affairs or physical seclusion |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| 2004 - illegal to photograph or videotape naked or partially naked without consent in a setting (like a hotel room) where an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy (ex. Erin Andrews) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| police suspected Jones of drug trafficking, obtained warrant for GPS locator on his car. violated 4th amendment by trespass on private property; violates citizen's right to be left lone and control information about themselves. unlawful to place tracking device on vehicle |
|
|
Term
| General rule about filming, photographing, and recording |
|
Definition
| illegal in places people expect certain level of privacy in private places; media can record/take pictures of what can be easily seen in public and quasi-public places (can record police and gov officials in public setting); not allowed to engage in harassment/assault of overzealous surveillance even in public places |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| people can photograph what can easily be seen or heard |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| ex. mall. business can set their own rules but public free to move in and out |
|
|
Term
| When is intrusive behavior typically found not to be highly offensive? |
|
Definition
| sometimes not offensive if person recording conversation is participant in the situation; revealing something for public benefit; when in public or quasi-public place; police officers |
|
|
Term
| What are the rules about secret recording (hidden cameras)? |
|
Definition
may be intrusion, particularly if electronic equipment is used in a private place
Florida Law - unlawful to intentionally intercept/ use a device to intercept wire, oral, or electronic communication; requires party's consent to taping; third degree felony - up to 5 years |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| 2 Life magazine employees used voice transmitter and camera in "quack" doctor's house. entered using false names and photographed doctor waving wand over body of tissue and a cancerous breast. sent to nearby police car. Dietmann won $1000 - his home was a place he could reasonably expect to exclude eavesdropping newsmen. FA not license for reporters to trespass, steal or intrude into ones' home or office during newsgathering |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Physically entering or inviting someone to go on private property without consent of owner; punitive damages awarded only if trespass is willful or malicious |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| consent (expressed or implied - custom and usage) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Florida one of the few states that recognizes this defense; it is very common that journalist enters with public official (public officials may enter in case of emergency), someone knocks on door selling magazines |
|
|
Term
| Florida Publishing Co v. Fletcher |
|
Definition
| Ruled Florida Times reporter did not trespass when entered home with firefighters where 17 y/o Cindy Fletcher was killed (picture of where she lay was published). Mother was not home at the time and sued. |
|
|
Term
| Elements of false light tort |
|
Definition
| dissemination of highly offensive false publicity about someone with knowledge of or reckless disregard for the falsity; distortion; fictionalization |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| info is omitted or used out of context |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| addition of fictional material to what are otherwise essentially factual works |
|
|
Term
| When must a plaintiff prove "actual malice" in a false light case? |
|
Definition
becausefalse light privacy has been "constitutionalized," false light defendants may claim that plaintiff must prove fault, actual malice
public interest, public officials, public figures = NYT actual malice
private persons = negligence |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
1955 - Life reported Broadway play depicted Hill family in a positive but false light, three convicts held Hills hostage in home for 19 hours. Convicts treated family with courtesy and released them unharmed; but play said Hills endured treatment and rose to heroism
- Fictionalized article brought issue to light; lower courts upheld false light claim but SC reversed it
- SC recognized false light tort but ruled family as public figure libel plaintiffs, had to prove NYT actual malice if involved in newsworthy issue |
|
|
Term
| Defenses for false light case |
|
Definition
| plaintiff not identified in publication and publication is true; may claim the plaintiff must prove fault (usually actual malice); would NOT sue for lost reputation but is seeking compensation |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
FL doesn't recognize "false light"
"duplicates existing torts without the attendant protections of the First Amendment"
defamation by implication |
|
|
Term
| Anderson v. Pensacola News Journal |
|
Definition
- article claimed "shot and killed his wife"
- 2 sentences later, story said authorities determined hunting accident
- agreed facts true, but claimed paper slanted them, making him look like a murderer
- after all this, FL SC decides it does not recognize false light |
|
|
Term
| Elements of appropriation |
|
Definition
unauthorized commercial use of another's name or likeliness; protects person's property right
right of publicity - advertisements, look alike and sound alike |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Warner Bros v. Tyne - family of William Tyne sued Warner Bros over "Perfect Storm" movie
FL statute prevents use of person's name to promote product or service
Does not apply to publications, including motion pictures, which do not promote a product or service |
|
|
Term
| Defenses against appropriation |
|
Definition
| newsworthiness, consent (generally don't need consent because newsworthy uses of person's identity are not considered commercial appropriations |
|
|
Term
| Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard |
|
Definition
broadcast whole cannon ball stunt even though he asked not to
broadcasting entire act, people might not pay to see it in person
SC held first amendment did not protect privilege to broadcast whole act ("professional property") |
|
|
Term
| Elements for emotional distress lawsuit |
|
Definition
- Conduct so outrageous in character and so extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency and be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in civilized community
- Media cause physical harm either by inciting readers and viewers to illegal action or through negligence where the media fail to foresee that the members of an audience will emulate violent acts they see or read about
- Intentional infliction of emotional distress tort called “outrage” |
|
|
Term
| Private figures suing for intentional infliction of emotional distress |
|
Definition
| occasionally can file suits against media but DC has all but eliminated such suits by public figures and officials |
|
|
Term
| Public figures suing for intentional infliction of emotional distress |
|
Definition
| for a time, public figures viewed intentional infliction as alternative to libel and false light because the person claiming for emotional distress did not have to prove media published with malice |
|
|
Term
| Hustler Magazine v. Falwell |
|
Definition
US SC ruled public figures cannot sue media for intentional infliction without proving they are the subject of a false statement of fact published NYT actual malice
- Hustler published parody of reverend Falwell's "first time" having sex with his mother.
- did not invade privacy bc it was not for commercial purposes
- so outrageous couldn't be true - realm of ideas and opinion
- outrageous standard of liability unconstitutional because too subjective and would punish publisher's motives |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| at least one party of a conversation is aware of recorder or transmitter |
|
|
Term
| FL Law on participant monitoring |
|
Definition
- Federal law permits one party in conversation to record
- FL law requires consent of both people
- if recorder in front of face and still talking, implied consent
- video not illegal, video with sound can be illegal |
|
|
Term
| Do reporters trespass when they misrepresent themselves to acquire information from public businesses? |
|
Definition
| Yes, they may misrepresent the purpose of the interview with a private person, fail to identify themselves as a reporter or unnecessarily disrupt a business |
|
|
Term
| When is media responsible for physical harm, which results from incitement, negligence, or lack of duty not to publish material due to foreseeable harm? |
|
Definition
| when someone emulates or copies what they have seen or read. when mimics of media harm themselves or others. courts tend to reject incitement. must be PROVEN to be sued |
|
|
Term
| Speech rights of corporations |
|
Definition
- cannot be charged twice for same crime
- have some first amendment rights as "speaker"
- can contribute political and social commentary
- provide commercial info to consumers
- cannot be compelled to carry messages that they opposed
- can lobby government
- right to speak on matters of public importance
- can create political action committees |
|
|
Term
| Corporations' limits on speech rights |
|
Definition
- no right of privacy
- can be required to testify against themselves
- can be compelled to provide info to gov and public
- can buy political advertising but cannot give contributions (gifts/$/services) |
|
|
Term
| First National Bank of Boston v. Belotti |
|
Definition
- Mass Law prohibited corporations from buying ads that supported/opposed referendum unless corporation was directly affected
- Bank wanted to fight personal income tax by purchasing ads
- attorney general said tax not directly related to bank's business
- SC declares mass law unconstitutional
- ruled not all corporate speech is protected, gov can still have interest in it under strict scrutiny |
|
|
Term
| Pacific Gas & Electric v. Public Utilities Comm. |
|
Definition
- public utilities required PG&E to include messages from TURN, a consumer group often opposed PG&E
- ruled unconstitutional to require PG&E to carry political views they did not agree with
- similar to rights of newspapers, cannot be compelled - Miami Herald v. Tornillo |
|
|
Term
| Rules on corporations/individuals contributing to political campaigns |
|
Definition
- Corporations used to not be allowed to buy advertising on behalf of federal candidate or give money directly to campaigns
- Citizens United v. FEC 2010
- now, corporations and labor unions may use general treasury funds either for "electioneering" communications or for activities expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, sought injunction against Federal Election Commission to prevent application of the BCRA to its film Hillary: The Movie (oay per view, expressed opinions about whether H.Clinton would make a good president)
- DC District Court denied, describing movie as the functional equivalent of express advocacy
- SC overruled district court 5-4 vote "political speech cannot be banned based on speaker's corporate identity"
- dissent "inaccurate that corporations should be treated identically to humans. in elections, difference between the two is significant. corporations make enormous contributions to society but are not members of it, they cannot vote or run for office" |
|
|
Term
| Government regulations on corporate speech |
|
Definition
- is it constitutional? Yes
- SC rules corporations, like citizens and political groups, have constitutional right to expend money for advertising support/opposition of candidates
- Buckley v. Valeo |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- court originally supported restriction son corporate and union spending relating to candidates
- limited contributions to candidates for federal office
- required the disclosure of political contributions
- provided for the public financing of presidential elections
- limited expenditures by candidates and associated committees,except for presidential candidates who accepted public funding
- limited independent expenditures to $1000
- limited candidate expenditures from personal funds
- created and fixed the method of appointing members to the Federal Election Commission |
|
|
Term
| Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act |
|
Definition
| - restricted use of soft money (funds spent by organizations not directly contributed to campaigns, do not "expressly advocate" election or defeat of candidate) ex. Vote or Die |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- political action committees
- raise and spend campaign money SEPARATELY from corporate treasury
- limited in contributions they can make to political campaign
- can make unlimited expenditures on behalf of candidate
- solicitation limited to corporate management, stockholders and their families, and union members and their families |
|
|
Term
| expenditures v. contributions |
|
Definition
contributions - gifts of $ or service given directly to candidate or campaign committee
expenditures - money spent independently of candidates to advocate their positions (advertising, discounts, use of facilities)
- corporations can have independent expenditures for candidates but no contributions |
|
|
Term
| "Electioneering" communications |
|
Definition
| any broadcast, cable , or satellite communication that refers to a federal candidate during the 60 days before a general election or 30 days before a primary election and is broadcast in the area in which candidate is running for office |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
"magic words" - "elect John Smith" or "vote against Jane Doe"
before BRCA, corporations were allowed to refer to federal candidates in issue ads as long as so called magic words - cannot condemn or support candidate's record |
|
|
Term
| What provisions of BCRA were upheld as constitutional by US Supreme Court in Citizens United v. FEC? |
|
Definition
- corporations could provide independent expenditures but not as controlled expenditures
- was to prevent distortion that might result if corporate and union capital enter the electoral process
- court held that portions of BCRA violated first amendment |
|
|
Term
| What are the concerns raised by Citizens United holding? What are benefits? |
|
Definition
- that there would be distortion if money was involved by corporations
- can't refer to candidates in issue ads |
|
|
Term
| How did First Amendment protections for commercial speech evolve? |
|
Definition
Evolved from commercial speech receiving no constitutional first amendment protection to gradually receiving more protection for issues of public concern
- Valentine v. Christensen
- NY Times v. Sullivan |
|
|
