Plenty of cases I could cite, but that would make for some mighty boring reading.
Here is an excerpt from an article:
Public disclosure of private facts occurs when a writer discloses private and embarrassing facts about a living person that are not of "public concern." First Amendment rights protect publication of items of legitimate pubic concern, such as the details of a crime. Ask yourself, is the story newsworthy? If so, the public's interest in knowing about the incident outweighs the privacy factor. If, however, the matter is not one of public concern, and is one that most people would find highly offensive, there is an invasion of privacy. For example, publicizing the fact that your brother-in-law has failed to pay his mortgage for three months, although true, would be an invasion of his privacy. Other examples would be details of a person's sexual problems, physical or mental ailments. Problems often arise when writing about a real-life event: in such cases, you should obtain written releases from the "ordinary people" who are only peripherally involved with the newsworthy event.
While this article addresses the new area of false light when publishing it still is a valid principle in some states. Which is why I am a great proponent of "it depends".
For example, the present case was made worse by the pastor's obvious personal interest, if there were an overwhelming need to state something publicly like warning parents of a known child molester it would probably be ok, because it would be lacking the malicious element. On the other hand'- "it depends"
Would not paying your mortgage be a breach of contract and thus a public concern?
__________________
You better watch out before I blitzkrieg your thread cause I'm the Thread Nazi now!
An entertainer who performed at an amusement park with a swimming pig brought defamation and false light claims based on the publication of her photo in Chic magazine. The photo was a true representation of the woman and her pig, so it could not give rise to a defamation claim. But her false light claim succeeded because the essence of the piece, which made the entertainer's act seem sexual and deviant, was held to be false. (Braun v. Flynt, 1984)
An entertainer who performed at an amusement park with a swimming pig brought defamation and false light claims based on the publication of her photo in Chic magazine. The photo was a true representation of the woman and her pig, so it could not give rise to a defamation claim. But her false light claim succeeded because the essence of the piece, which made the entertainer's act seem sexual and deviant, was held to be false. (Braun v. Flynt, 1984)
Interesting.
__________________
You better watch out before I blitzkrieg your thread cause I'm the Thread Nazi now!
The woman denies that she committed adultery during their eight years of marriage, which is why she filed the lawsuit. She was accused of something she didn't do.
From reading the materials, I didn't get the impression that she was alone with the other man while wearing a bikini, just that she wore a bikini in front of a friend's husband, which the pastor considered exhibitionism.
Sounds like the pastor wasn't sure how it would go over for his daughter to marry a divorced man, so he wanted to illustrate that the wife had committed a sin worthy of divorce so that the man was free to marry.
I'm inclined to believed that the woman did not commit adultery, or she was taking a huge risk by filing a lawsuit.
Yeah, really!!! ???? "It ain't like DA2 to be "way out on a limb?"
Get up to speed canam. LOL.
HA Ha i didnt mean it totally that way, i was refering to post 4 and where he said" to many in this culture not being submissive equals being a jezebel witch" i thought just that part was a little overboard.
my bad. i didnt quote the right part >
HA Ha i didnt mean it totally that way, i was refering to post 4 and where he said" to many in this culture not being submissive equals being a jezebel witch" i thought just that part was a little overboard.
my bad. i didnt quote the right part >
the funny thing is... what he said is totally true!
I've heard it preached that rebellion is as witchcraft. Not being submissive is usually taken to be rebellion. Theres the witch part.
I've heard any woman that wears makeup/jewelry/bikinis (or just doesn't plain dress "right") called a jezebel. Theres the jezebel part.
__________________
You better watch out before I blitzkrieg your thread cause I'm the Thread Nazi now!
Ya oook! i see what ya saying prolly true i guess .btw this guy should have dumb tatooed on HIS head gotta be what the big meeting was about, they are going to go after the money where ever it leads, not that it would be tupelo.Overturned on appeal before a judge, not a jury?
gotta be what the big meeting was about, they are going to go after the money where ever it leads, not that it would be tupelo.Overturned on appeal before a judge, not a jury?
Linear Mode
