Publication of Private Facts

Internet "Troll" Sued for Craigslist Sex Prank

A great New York Times article last weekend drew our attention to this rather colorful legal threat and its target, Jason Fortuny, a freelance web designer, programmer, and noted (or notorious) Internet troll. In 2006, Mr. Fortuny engaged in what he called the "Craigslist Experiment," in which he posted a fake ad on Craigslist pretending to be a woman seeking a man for rough sex.  According to the Times article, over one-hundred men responded, providing photographs and contact information. Mr. Fortuny allegedly posted this material to his blog, RFJason, and Encyclopedia Dramatica (described by the New York Times as "an online compendium of troll humor and troll lore"). Mr. Fortuny disputes posting the photographs and contact information to Encyclopedia Dramatica.    read more »

Understanding Your Legal Risks When You Blog or Publish Online

Over the next few weeks I'll be posting about various topics we cover in the CMLP's Citizen Media Legal Guide.  If you would like to read any of the previous "highlights" from the guide, you can find them here

Today, I'll start with the risks associated with publishing online (for information on the legal risks associated with gathering, as opposed to publishing, information, see the Newsgathering section of the CMLP's legal guide).  Every time you publish something online, whether it's a news article, blog post, podcast, video, or even a user comment, you open yourself up to potential legal liability. This shouldn't come as too much of a surprise because the Internet, after all, is available to anyone who wishes to connect to the network, and even the smallest blog or most obscure discussion forum has the potential to reach hundreds of millions of people throughout the world.

Often the legal risks are small, but not always. The risks you could face when you publish online can take a number of forms, depending on what and how you publish. This post and the legal guide sections it links to are not intended to make you an expert on media law, but merely to help you identify potential "red flags" so that when you publish something that might result in liability, you will know to be extra careful and will take the necessary steps to minimize your potential legal risks.

Let's start with the more obvious risks.   read more »

Max Mosley's S&M Party Not A Matter of Legitimate Public Concern, Says English Court

Admittedly, Max Mosley's lawsuit against an English tabloid is not the heartland of citizen media, but who can resist posting about a story that involves "sadomasochistic orgies, car racing, and Nazis," as Bill McGeveran puts it.  Mosley, the head of the governing body for Formula One racing, sued the News of the World for reporting in March 2008 that he organized a “sick Nazi orgy” with five prostitutes and for posting a surreptitiously recorded video of the party on its website. Mosley claimed that the S&M extravaganza had no Nazi theme and that recording and publishing the video and story violated his right to privacy under the European Convention on Human Rights. England's High Court ruled in Mosley's favor yesterday and awarded him £60,000 in compensatory damages and  £450,000 in attorneys' fees (ouch!). BBC news has a good article providing lots of background.

The big issue in the case was whether details about the S&M orgy were a matter of legitimate public concern. English law (or the English court's interpretation of the European Convention), like U.S. law, recognizes a defense to a publication of private facts claim when the matter publicized is newsworthy. The tabloid argued, reasonably enough, that a public figure holding a Nazi-themed sex party was newsworthy, especially when this public figure's father was notorious fascist Sir Oswald Mosley. Mosley argued that there was no Nazi element to the party and thus his private consensual sexual acts were not newsworthy.   read more »

Publication of Private Facts in Washington

Washington recognizes a legal claim for publication of private facts. The law in Washington is likely similar to that described in the general page on publication of private facts, but few Washington cases deal directly with this legal claim. This page addresses those aspects of Washington law, to the extent it is known, that are different from the general description.

Elements of a Private Facts Claim

In Washington, the elements of a publication of private facts claim are: (1) public disclosure (2) of a matter concerning the private life of another (3) that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (4) that is not of legitimate concern to the public.

Washington law does not impose liability for publication of information that is of legitimate public concern or newsworthy. In one case, a Washington court indicated that the circumstances of the death of a young woman found naked on the side of the road were a matter of "immediate public concern" even though neither the woman nor her parents were public figures. See Moloney v. Tribune Publ'g Co., 613 P.2d 1179 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980). Washington courts probably would follow the courts of other states in determining what is a matter of legitimate public concern. See the general description for a sense of what others courts have said about this issue.   read more »

Publication of Private Facts in Virginia

Virginia does not recognize a legal claim for the publication of private facts. See WJLA-TV v. Levin, 564 S.E.2d 383, 395 n.5 (Va. 2002).

 

Publication of Private Facts in Texas

Texas recognizes a legal claim for publication of private facts. For the most part, the law in Texas is similar to that described in the general page on publication of private facts. See that page for a full discussion of the elements of and defenses to a private facts claim. Here, we will address only those aspects of Texas law that are different from the general description.

Elements of a Private Facts Claim

In Texas, in order to recover for public disclosure of private facts, a plaintiff must show that (1) publicity was given to matters concerning his or her private life; (2) the publication of these facts would be highly offensive to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities; and (3) the matter publicized was not of legitimate public concern.

Texas law does not impose liability for publication of information that is of legitimate public concern or newsworthy. A federal court applying Texas law has indicated that "reports of the investigation of crimes or matters pertaining to criminal activity have almost without exception been held to be newsworthy or matters of public interest as a matter of law." Lowe v. Hearst Communications, Inc., 487 F.3d 246, 250 (5th Cir. 2007)

Texas courts have found the following things, among others, to be of legitimate public concern or newsworthy:   read more »

Publication of Private Facts in Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania recognizes a legal claim for publication of private facts. For the most part, the law in Pennsylvania is similar to that described in the general page on publication of private facts. See that page for a full discussion of the elements of and defenses to a private facts claim. This page addresses only those aspects of Pennsylvania law that are different from the general description.

Elements of a Private Facts Claim

In Pennsylvania, the elements of a publication of private facts claim are: (1) publicity given to (2) private facts, (3) which would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (4) is not of legitimate concern to the public.

Pennsylvania law does not impose liability for publication of factually accurate information that is "newsworthy" or of legitimate public concern. Pennsylvania courts consider information newsworthy when it concerns "relatively current events such as in the common experience are likely to be of public interest." Jenkins v. Dell Publ'g Co., 251 F.2d 447, 451 (3d Cir. 1958).

Courts applying Pennsylvania law have found the following things to be of legitimate public concern or newsworthy:   read more »

Publication of Private Facts in Ohio

Ohio recognizes a legal claim for publication of private facts. For the most part, the law in Ohio is similar to that described in the general page on publication of private facts. See that page for a full discussion of the elements of and defenses to a private facts claim. This section addresses only those aspects of Ohio law that are different from the general description.

Elements of a Private Facts Claim

In Ohio, the elements of a publication of private facts claim are: (1) a public disclosure; (2) the facts disclosed must concern the private life of an individual, not his or her public life; (3) the matter disclosed must be one which would be highly offensive and objectionable to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities; (4) the disclosure must have been made intentionally, not negligently; and (5) the matter disclosed must not be of legitimate concern to the public.

Ohio law does not impose liability for publication of factually accurate information that is "newsworthy" or of legitimate public concern. Examples of things that Ohio courts have considered to be of legitimate public concern or newsworthy include:

  • a drug raid, including the arrest of an innocent bystander that was broadcast on television;
  • the name and address of a murder suspect's father;
  • the manner in which the police handle domestic violence complaints;
  • information concerning a county government's Medicaid fraud investigation; and
  • allegations of domestic abuse against a police chief.

For additional information and discussion of Ohio cases, see the Reporters Committee's Photographers' Guide to Privacy: Ohio.   read more »

   
 
Copyright 2007-2008 Citizen Media Law Project and respective authors. Except where otherwise noted,
content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License: Details.
Use of this site is pursuant to our Terms of Use and Privacy Notice.