False Light: Understanding the Differences, Defenses, and Oklahoma Law - Prof. Eugene Sena, Study notes of Communication

Download False Light: Understanding the Differences, Defenses, and Oklahoma Law - Prof. Eugene Sena and more Study notes Communication in PDF only on Docsity! 16- False Light Know the legal DEFINITION, the DEFENSES against such a claim, the appropriate COURT CASES, and how each is treated under OKLAHOMA LAW.  False light, one of the four common law invasion of privacy torts defined in the Restatement (Second) of Torts, is the purposeful or reckless portrayal of an individual to the public in a false light that is highly offensive to a reasonable person. Because false light invasion of privacy is similar to libel, some states have rejected this tort.  Not all states have adopted this because it is so similar to libel  Why did the North Carolina Supreme Court reject this tort? o First, any right to recover for false light invasion of privacy will often either duplicate an existing right of recovery for libel/slander/involve a good deal of overlapping w/ such rights. Second, recognition of a separate tort of false light invasion of privacy, to the extent it would allow recovery beyond that permitted in actions for libel or slander, would tend to add to the tension already existing between the FA & the law of torts in cases of this nature.  Why did the Oklahoma Supreme Court adopt this tort ? o In contrast, Oklahoma SC adopted this tort in McCormack v. Oklahoma Publishing Co. o The court noted that false light and defamation overlap and that a cause of action for either or both may go exist in the same case. But false light also goes “beyond the narrow limits and slander and may afford a needed remedy not covered by defamation.”  According to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, what is the difference between libel and false light? o “In an action for libel, recovery is sought primarily for the injury to one’s reputation. The focus of the action is on the effect of the publication on what others may think of the person. Under the theory of false light invasion of privacy, the interest to be vindicated is the injury to the person’s own feelings.”  To recover for false light, what must the plaintiff prove ? o 1 – defendant gave publicity to the matter that placed the plaintiff in a false light o 2 – false light would be highly offensive to a reasonable person and o 3 – The defendant acted w/ actual malice.  Under Oklahoma law, is truth an absolute defense against a false light claim? (On Quiz) 1 o Yes. “Under the law of Oklahoma, truth is an absolute defense in an invasion of privacy/false light action o Truthful statements are protected even if they portray the individual in a light that is highly offensive to a reasonably person. o Ex: Polin v. Jews for Jesus – plaintiff conceded publicized matter was true. “Under the law of OK, truth is an absolute defense in an invasion of privacy/false light action.”  Has the Oklahoma Supreme Court articulated what constitutes a "highly offensive" depiction or statement"? o No. o Courts have narrowly construed “highly offensive” standard to “avoid conflict w/ FA rights. o Ex: Cibenko v. Worth Publishers – NY-NJ police officer’s pic in sociology text. “White/black?” Appeared to be racist. USDC – it’s okay. Not specific portrayal.  Are all false statements considered "highly offensive"? If not, which would be in Oklahoma? (On Quiz) (Know for Hypothetical on test) o No o “It is only when there is such a major misrepresentation of his character, history, activities or beliefs that serious offense may reasonably be expected to be taken by a reasonable man in his position, that there is a cause of action for invasion of privacy.” o Just has to meet one of the criteria, not all o “Applies only when the defendant knows that the plaintiff, as a reasonable man, would be justified in the eyes of the community in feeling seriously offended and aggrieved by the publicity.”  Is a "reasonable person" or "hypersensitive person" standard used in Oklahoma? o A "reasonable person" NOT a “hypersensitive person" standard is used in Oklahoma  Can a false light claim be premised only on mere harm to one's feelings? o No. the portrayal must be “highly offensive to a reasonable person.”  What standard of fault must the plaintiff prove to win a false light claim in Oklahoma? (senat page 101) (On Quiz) o To win a false light claim, the state SC reaffirmed in Colbert v. World Publishing Com., the plaintiff also must prove that the defendant acted with actual malice. o In addition to proving actual malice…  Ex: Colbert v. World Publishing Co. – rejected the plaintiff’s suggestion that negligence be the standard of liability – actual malice is better test to weed out suits premised on mere discord individuals while preserving those where the conduct of 2