>>> Item number 36753 from WRITERS LOG9409B --- (81 records) ----- <<< Date: Tue, 13 Sep 1994 18:35:02 JST Reply-To: WRITERS Sender: WRITERS From: Mike Barker Subject: TECH: Law of Privacy We've had a few questions along these lines, and I found my notes from a course on Law of Mass Communications, so... First, note that I took this course in the mid-70's. We used a book "Law of Mass Communications: Freedom and Control of Print and Broadcast Media" by Harold L. Nelson and Dwight L. Teeter, Jr. The Foundation Press, Inc. 1973. The law and court decisions may very well have changed since then--so don't take this as the last word on the subject. Perhaps one of our students (NIKKI?) will be intrigued enough to update us on the topic. The "right to be let alone" has been recognized as a constitutional right by the U.S. Supreme Court. Most of the legal decisions are defined by court decisions, not statutes. There are three areas of privacy recognized: intrusions, publication of embarrassing private facts, and placing a person in a false light. The questions of fact which must be proved to win a suit in any of these areas are the easiest way to understand the areas. Intrusion involves two questions of fact. First, the story or photograph must be shown to have "trespassed" into a private place, such as a home or office. Second, the person bringing suit must prove that no consent was given. I.e., a public location and/or the consent of the person is enough to disprove intrusion. Publication of embarrassing private facts involves at least five questions of fact. 1. Was there a published story or photograph? 2. Was the individual identified in such a way that the person's peers (co-workers, friends, relatives, etc.) recognized the individual? 3. Was consent given? 4. Were the facts not newsworthy? E.g., the facts in question were not part of a public event or recent news story? 5. Were the facts actually embarrassing? Public figures (in privacy law, this includes unwilling public figures--almost anyone that the public is interested in...) must also prove that there was "actual malice"--the writer acted with reckless disregard for the truth in an extreme departure from journalistic standards. Placing a person in a false light has a similar group of five basic questions of fact, with a sixth one for public figures. The first four are the same questions of publication, identification, lack of consent, and lack of newsworthiness. The fifth question is whether the story or photograph places the person in a false light--does it in some way depict the person in a situation which differs from the actual situation? For example, if an interview with an attorney during a recess in a trial were illustrated with an old photo of the attorney in a bar (unlabelled and undated), this would fairly clearly "place the person in a false light." As a public figure, the attorney also would have to prove actual malice. Perhaps the clearest way of avoiding all these problems is to request consent explicitly, and get the answer in writing (tape, or some other permanent form). To avoid intrusion, stick with interviews and photography in public places. Any area which is _normally_ visible from a public place is also considered public, but be careful when you start using the telephoto lens, parabolic microphones, periscopes, and other gear of the accomplished snooper... around some of those corners are private places. Stories based on recent public events and "events in the news" (maybe not the Daily Enquirer or that "reader's digest" of the news media, U.S.A. Today--stick to real stories verified and checked by good journalists) should also avoid any question of publication of embarrassing private facts or placing a person in a false light. Not sure what this means for those of you who would like to use a public figure in fiction--we didn't talk much about making up events in that class, we were having enough trouble writing about the real things... tink