First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Governmental power to protect the privacy interests of its citizens by penalizing publication or authorizing causes of action for publication implicates directly First Amendment rights. Privacy is a concept composed of several aspects.1 As a tort concept, it embraces at least four branches of protected interests: protection from unreasonable intrusion upon one’s seclusion, from appropriation of one’s name or likeness, from unreasonable publicity given to one’s private life, and from publicity which unreasonably places one in a false light before the public.2
Although the Court has variously recognized valid governmental interests in extending protection to privacy,3 it has nevertheless interposed substantial free expression interests in the balance. Thus, in Time, Inc. v. Hill,4 the Times privilege was held to preclude recovery under a state privacy statute that permitted recovery for harm caused by exposure to public attention in any publication which contained factual inaccuracies, although not necessarily defamatory inaccuracies, in communications on matters of public interest. Since Gertz held that the Times privilege did not limit the recovery of compensatory damages for defamation by private persons, the question arose whether Hill applies to all false-light
cases or only such cases involving public officials or public figures.5 And, more important, Gertz left unresolved the issue whether the State may ever define and protect an area of privacy free from unwanted publicity in the press.
6
In Cox Broadcasting, the Court declined to pass on the broad question, holding instead that the accurate publication of information obtained from public records is absolutely privileged. Thus, the state could not permit a civil recovery for invasion of privacy occasioned by the reporting of the name of a rape victim obtained from court records and from a proceeding in open court.7 Nevertheless, the Court in appearing to retreat from what had seemed to be settled principle, that truth is a constitutionally required defense in any defamation action, whether plaintiff be a public official, public figure, or private individual, may have preserved for itself the discretion to recognize a constitutionally permissible tort of invasion of privacy through publication of truthful information.8 But in recognition of the conflicting interests—in expression and in privacy—it is evident that the judicial process in this area will be cautious.
Continuing to adhere to limited principles that sweep no more broadly than the appropriate context of the instant case,
the Court invalidated an award of damages against a newspaper for printing the name of a sexual assault victim lawfully obtained from a sheriff’s department press release. The state was unable to demonstrate that imposing liability served a need
to further a state interest of the highest order, since the same interest could have been served by the more limited means of self regulation by the police, since the particular per se negligence statute precluded inquiry into the extent of privacy invasion (e.g., inquiry into whether the victim’s identity was already widely known), and since the statute singled out mass communications
media for liability rather than applying evenhandedly to anyone disclosing a victim’s identity.9
Emotional Distress Tort Actions
In Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell,10 the Court applied the New York Times v. Sullivan standard to recovery of damages by public officials and public figures for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress. The case involved an advertisement parody
portraying the plaintiff, described by the Court as a nationally known minister who has been active as a commentator on politics and public affairs,
as stating that he lost his virginity during a drunken incestuous rendezvous with his mother in an outhouse.
11 Affirming liability in this case, the Court believed, would subject political cartoonists and satirists . . . to damage awards without any showing that their work falsely defamed its subject.
12 A proffered outrageousness
standard for distinguishing such parodies from more traditional political cartoons was rejected; although not doubting that the caricature of respondent . . . is at best a distant cousin of [some] political cartoons . . . and a rather poor relation at that,
the Court explained that ‘[o]utrageousness’ in the area of political and social discourse has an inherent subjectiveness about it which would allow a jury to impose liability on the basis of the jurors’ tastes or views. . . .
13 Therefore, proof of intent to cause injury, the gravamen of the tort,
is insufficient in the area of public debate about public figures.
Additional proof that the publication contained a false statement of fact made with actual malice was necessary, the Court concluded, in order to give adequate ‘breathing space’ to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment.
14
The Court next considered whether an intentional infliction of emotional distress action could be brought by a father against public protestors who picketed the military funeral of his son, where the plaintiff was neither a public official nor a public figure. Based on the reasoning of Hustler Magazine, one might presume that the Times privilege would not extend to the intentional infliction of emotional distress upon a private citizen. However, in Snyder v. Phelps,15 the Court avoided addressing this issue, finding that where public protesters are addressing issues of public concern, the fact that such protests occurred in a setting likely to upset private individuals did not reduce the First Amendment protection of that speech. In Phelps, the congregation of the Westboro Baptist Church, based on the belief that God punishes the United States for its tolerance of homosexuality, particularly in America’s armed forces, had engaged in nearly 600 protests at funerals, mostly military. While it was admitted that the plaintiff had suffered emotional distress after a protest at his son's funeral, the Court declined to characterize the protests as directed at the father personally.16 Rather, considering the content, form, and context
of that speech,17 the Court found that the dominant themes of the protest went to public concerns, and thus could not serve as the basis for a tort suit.18
Right of Publicity Tort Actions
In Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co.,19 the Court held unprotected by the First Amendment a broadcast of a video tape of the entire act
of a human cannonball
in the context of the performer’s suit for damages against the company for having appropriated
his act, thereby injuring his right to the publicity value of his performance. The Court emphasized two differences between the legal action permitted here and the legal actions found unprotected or not fully protected in defamation and other privacy-type suits. First, the interest sought to be protected was, rather than a party’s right to his reputation and freedom from mental distress, the right of the performer to remuneration for putting on his act. Second, the other torts if permitted decreased the information that would be made available to the public, whereas permitting this tort action would have an impact only on who gets to do the publishing.
20 In both respects, the tort action was analogous to patent and copyright laws in that both provide an economic incentive to persons to make the investment required to produce a performance of interest to the public.21