L ibe l a nd Priva c y L a w Prime r in the T rump E ra Ric ha - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

L ibe l a nd Priva c y L a w Prime r in the T rump E ra Ric ha rd C. Ba lo ug h Ba lo ug h L a w Offic e s, L L C F e b rua ry 14, 2018 Ba lo ug h L a w Offic e s, L L C

“Our c urre nt lib e l la ws a re a sha m a nd a disg ra c e a nd do no t re pre se nt Ame ric a n va lue s o r Ame ric a n fa irne ss” Ba lo ug h L a w Offic e s, L L C

F I RST AME NDME NT Co ng re ss sha ll ma ke no la w . . . a b ridg ing the fre e do m o f spe e c h, o r o f the pre ss . . . Ba lo ug h L a w Offic e s, L L C

WHAT I S T HE PRE SS? • I nstitutio na l pre ss • Ne wspa pe rs • T e le visio n sta tio ns • Ra dio sta tio ns • No n-institutio na l pre ss • Blo g g e rs • We b site s Ba lo ug h L a w Offic e s, L L C

WHAT I S T HE PRE SS? I s the re a distinc tio n b e twe e n the “institutio na l pre ss” a nd o the rs? Ba lo ug h L a w Offic e s, L L C

WHAT I S T HE PRE SS? A distinc tio n b e twe e n the institutio na l pre ss a nd o the rs is unwo rka b le with “the a dve nt o f the I nte rne t a nd the de c line o f print a nd b ro a dc a st me dia . . . b e c o me s fa r mo re b lurre d.” • Citize ns Unite d v. F e de ra l E le c tio n Co mmissio n Ba lo ug h L a w Offic e s, L L C

BUT . . . I ndia na jo urna list privile g e la w a pplie s to pe rso ns • Co nne c te d with o r e mplo ye d b y: • A ne wspa pe r o r o the r pe rio dic a l issue d a t re g ula r inte rva ls a nd ha ving g e ne ra l c irc ula tio n • Co nne c te d with a lic e nse d ra dio o r te le visio n sta tio n who re c e ive d o r ha s re c e ive d inc o me fro m le g itima te g a the ring , writing , e diting , inte re pre ting , a nno unc ing o r b ro a dc a sting o f ne ws Ba lo ug h L a w Offic e s, L L C

BUT . . . I llino is Re po rte r Privile g e L a w de fine s • “Re po rte r” a s a pe rso n re g ula rly e ng a g e d in b usine ss o f c o lle c ting , writing , o r e diting ne ws fo r pub lic a tio n thro ug h a ne ws me dium o n a full-time o r pa rt time b a sis • “Ne ws me dium” a s a ne wspa pe r o r o the r pe rio dic a l issue d a t re g ula r inte rva ls whe the r in print o r e le c tro nic fo rma t a nd ha ving a g e ne ra l c irc ula tio n, ra dio o r b ro a dc a st sta tio n o r ne two rk, a nd a ny pe rso n e ng a g e d in the ma king o f ne ws re e ls o r o the r mo tio n pic ture ne ws Ba lo ug h L a w Offic e s, L L C

NO L AW ABRI DGI NG . . . “Yo u sa y tha t no la w me a ns no la w, a nd tha t sho uld b e o b vio us. I c a n o nly sa y, Mr. Justic e , tha t to me it is e q ua lly o b vio us tha t ‘ no la w’ do e s no t me a n ‘ no la w’ , a nd I wo uld se e k to pe rsua de the Co urt tha t tha t is true .” • So lic ito r Ge ne ra l in Pe nta g o n Pa pe r Ora l Arg ume nt Ba lo ug h L a w Offic e s, L L C

“Bo th the histo ry a nd la ng ua g e o f the F irst Ame ndme nt suppo rt the vie w tha t the pre ss must b e le ft fre e to pub lish ne ws, wha te ve r the so urc e , witho ut c e nso rship, injunc tio ns, o r prio r re stra ints.” • Ne w Yo rk T ime s v. U.S. Ba lo ug h L a w Offic e s, L L C

NO SPE CI AL I MMUNI T Y No immunity fro m la ws tha t a pply to o the rs: • L ib e l (De fa ma tio n) • Priva c y • Anti-SL AAP • Co pyrig ht • T ra de Se c re ts • Co mpute r F ra ud a nd Ab use Ac t Ba lo ug h L a w Offic e s, L L C

DE F AMAT I ON PE R SE De fa ma tio n is pre sume d if yo u impute • Co mmissio n o f c rimina l o ffe nse • An ina b ility to pe rfo rm o r wa nt o f inte g rity in the disc ha rg e o f dutie s o r e mplo yme nt • L a c k o f a b ility in tra de , pro fe ssio n, o r b usine ss • F a lse ly a c c using so me o ne o f a dulte ry • I nfe c tio n with a lo a thso me c o mmunic a b le dise a se Ba lo ug h L a w Offic e s, L L C

DE F AMAT I ON PE R QUOD Da ma g e s must b e pro ve n Ba lo ug h L a w Offic e s, L L C

Unprivile g e d pub lic a tio n Must sta te fa c t, no t a n o pinio n • Pre c ise • Ve rifia b le Co uc hing it a s ‘ o pinio n’ is no t e no ug h Co nte xt o f sta te me nt Ba lo ug h L a w Offic e s, L L C

• Sta te me nt is vie we d fro m the e ye s o f a n “o rdina ry re a de r” • Co nte xt • I n I llino is, “inno c e nt c o nstruc tio n rule ” Ba lo ug h L a w Offic e s, L L C

Ba se b a ll o wne r sa id o f two b ro a dc a ste rs: • I do n’ t mind c ritic ism, b ut the y b o th to ld a lo t o f lie s. T he y wa nte d us to lo se . T he pub lic c o uld no t kno w the truth a b o ut the m; the y a re b o th lia rs. T he y b o th sa id thing s o n the a ir the y kne w we re no t true .” • Pie rsa ll v. Spo rtsvisio n o f Chic a g o Ba lo ug h L a w Offic e s, L L C

Pro mo tio na l o n a ir a nno unc e me nt with re po rte r te lling pla intiff: “L e t’ s sum this up fo r a se c o nd, the e vide nc e se e ms to indic a te d tha t yo u’ re c he a ting the c ity.” • Sc hiva re lli v. CBS Ba lo ug h L a w Offic e s, L L C

He a dline : He a lth b o a rd shuts do o rs o f Ba ndido ’ s I nspe c to r finds ra ts, ro a c he s a t lo c a l e a te ry • Jo urna l-Ga ze tte Co . v. Ba ndido ’ s Ba lo ug h L a w Offic e s, L L C

C L a w Offic e s, L Ba lo ug h L

RI GHT T O PRI VACY T he pre ss is o ve rste pping in e ve ry dire c tio n the o b vio us b o unds o f pro prie ty a nd o f de c e nc y. Go ssip is no lo ng e r the re so urc e o f the idle a nd o f the vic io us, b ut ha s b e c o me a tra de , whic h is pursue d with industry a s we ll a s e ffro nte ry. • Wa rre n a nd Bra nde is, 1890 Ba lo ug h L a w Offic e s, L L C

RI GHT T O PRI VACY • Rig ht to b e le ft a lo ne • Pub lic ity to priva te fa c ts • I ntrusio n o n se c lusio n • F a lse lig ht Ba lo ug h L a w Offic e s, L L C

RI GHT T O PRI VACY No t spe c ific a lly sta te d in U.S. Co nstitutio n a ltho ug h so me c o nstitutio ns re c o g nize the rig ht to priva c y Ba lo ug h L a w Offic e s, L L C

RI GHT T O PRI VACY Giving pub lic ity to a ma tte r c o nc e rning a priva te life if the ma tte r • Wo uld b e hig hly o ffe nsive to a re a so na b le pe rso n • I s no t o f le g itima te c o nc e rn to the pub lic Ba lo ug h L a w Offic e s, L L C

RI GHT T O PRI VACY • Chic a g o T rib une inte rvie we d a mo the r in the ho spita l a fte r he r so n die d o f g unsho t wo unds. T o o k no te s o f mo the r ta lking to de a d so n a nd o o k pic ture s o f de a d so n. • K ma rt hire d priva te inve stig a to rs to a c t a s ja nito rs to g e t info rma tio n in inve nto ry shrinka g e . T he y a lso o ve rhe a rd c o mme nts a nd re po rte d to supe rio rs o n e mplo ye e fa mily ma tte rs, he a lth pro b le ms, a nd se x live s. Ba lo ug h L a w Offic e s, L L C

RI GHT T O PRI VACY I ntrusio n o n se c lusio n • Una utho rize d intrusio n o r prying into se c lusio n • I ntrusio n is o ffe nsive o r o b je c tio na b le to a re a so na b le pe rso n • I ntrusio n c a use s a ng uish a nd suffe ring Ba lo ug h L a w Offic e s, L L C

RI GHT T O PRI VACY • E mplo ye e punc he d ho le s in c e iling tile s to o b se rve the wo me n’ s re st ro o m • Ca me ra pla c e d in me dic a l o ffic e to c a tc h a thie f a lso re c o rde d me dic a l e xa mina tio n o f pa tie nts But no t • Ne ig hb o r fo c use d a c a me ra o n ne ig hb o r’ s g a ra g e a nd re c o rde d 24 ho urs a da y Ba lo ug h L a w Offic e s, L L C

RI GHT OF PUBL I CI T Y • Co mme rc ia l use o f ima g e , like ne ss, vo ic e , e tc . witho ut pe rmissio n • F o rme rly kno wn a s misa ppro pria tio n o f like ne ss • No w usua lly c a lle d the rig ht o f pub lic ity • Allo wing use fo r o ne purpo se ma y no t b e suffic ie nt fo r a ll purpo se s Ba lo ug h L a w Offic e s, L L C

DOE S PRI VACY ST I L L E XI ST ? Pra c tic a l o b sc urity . . . we ho ld a s a c a te g o ric a l ma tte r tha t a third pa rty’ s re q ue st fo r la w e nfo rc e me nt re c o rds o r info rma tio n a b o ut a priva te c itize n c a n re a so na b ly b e inspe c te d to inva de the c itize ns priva c y . . . T he re is a va st diffe re nc e b e twe e n the pub lic re c o rds tha t mig ht b e fo und a fte r a dilig e nt se a rc h o f c o urtho use file s, c o unty a rc hive s, a nd lo c a l po lic e sta tio ns thro ug ho ut the c o untry a nd a c o mpute rize d summa ry lo c a te d in a sing le c le a ring ho use o f info rma tio n.” • U.S. De pt. o f Justic e v Re po rte rs Co mmitte e fo r F re e do m o f the Pre ss Ba lo ug h L a w Offic e s, L L C