Freedom of Press vs Individual’s Rights to Privacy

 

Freedom of Press

  

They stake out at airports; they stake out in your neighborhood; they stake out by your house.  No, they are not fanatic fans of the latest hot rock stars.  Unfortunately, theirs is a different agenda.  Just who am I talking about?  Paparazzis. 

  

Paparazzi

Watch out.  A mob of paparazzi gather in loads at airports waiting to get a good shot at celebrities.  In fact, LAX airport is a hunting ground for paparazzi seeking their prey, the celebrities flying in or out of the city.  Few even drop by your house at 4am.  Few drive by your residence after they know your schedule.  Living in the city, you put yourself in the guerilla zone of paparazzi warfare; a locale that is far too much of an easy target for the paparazzi, New York City is not a good place to live if you want privacy simply because they can and will follow you around in the free streets of New York.  They park their cars right by your residence; stand outside hotels and restaurants knowing you will be there.  They will walk along with you and talk to you to get a response.  But the best way to deal with them is giving nothing away.  And they can do so without your contest or claims to privacy solely on the ground that you are after all in public space.      

 

Celebrities and paparazzi have an implied non-verbal contract where they take pictures and afterward, the celebrities go about running their daily schedule.  But some push too far.  So the celebrity reminds them they got what they were looking for and they should just let them be.  (If you get mental anguish from someone else’s doing, talk to your lawyer about a tort case such as emotional distress.)  But for the paparazzi, a higher price is at stake with good shots of their subjects:  celebrities going about with their lives.  Was he/she with a lover?  Were they canoodling?  What was he/she doing?  The juicier the story, the better price they get paid.

 

 

Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed

John F. Kennedy Jr. and Carolyn Bissett in NYC

The down side to fame comes at a cost.  That cost is your privacy.  If I had to name paparazzi’s two main targets to date, I narrow it down to these two:  Princess Diana and John F. Kennedy Jr.  Two of the most famous royals in the world, they made front covers and headlines on newspaper stands everywhere in any major metropolitan areas.  Princess Diana was Great Britain’s princess.  John F. Kennedy Jr. was a son of an American Royalty.  We would not most likely see the likes of these two unique individuals again. 

  

Married to a royal family at Buckingham Palace, Princess Diana became the people’s princess and world-famous politically for raising funds at charity events.  When she became single, the paparazzi came at her in a frenzy.  They followed her everywhere.  They even got a shot of her working out with weights at a gym that made front cover of a newspaper.  That is how famous Princess Diana was.  But have they gone too far with these celebrities? 

 

 

The photograph of Diana working out at the gym by the gym’s surveillance camera can be construed as a case under nonphysical intrusion of privacy.  Though she was at an open space, a photo of anyone shot at a place of business or home through cameras with long lenses unknown to the person and hidden from view from the person can be claimed as intrusion of privacy.  Crud, they got me.  Diana felt she lost to the press in that battle but did not file a complaint.  Another example would be a person changing his/her clothes at a gym’s locker room and photos of them are taken; walking into a spa or tanning salon and photos of you changing out of clothes are taken is an example of nonphysical intrusion of privacy. 

 

 

Car crash at Pont de L'Alma in Paris

Princess Diana’s personal life had begun to look up when she met Dodi Fayed, a playboy and businessman that can afford her a lifestyle she had become accustomed to in the palace and they were seen vacationing together at St. Tropez like two love birds setting off on a romantic escapade.  But Diana’s life ended abruptly and tragically when she and Dodi were trailed by a mob of paparazzi flashing their cameras while driving through a narrow tunnel of Pont de l’Alma in Paris.  The tragic event stirred up talks of paparazzi’s relationship to celebrities. 

 

 

Paris Hilton, heiress and owner of 17 perfume lines

infamous Rick Solomon's tape 

George Clooney, an actor with a blend of Cary Grant’s seductive charm and Jimmy Stewart’s boyish awww shucks humor spoke out in front of the press on his opinion of the paparazzi’s blatant involvement in Diana’s accidental death.  British actor Hugh Grant who has the looks of Cary Grant or any actor during the Golden Age of Hollywood complained that journalists published his hospital records on the papers.  Former popular president Bill Clinton had his share of complaints of audio tapes released during Clinton-Lewinski scandal which aired on prime-time network television for viewers nationwide.  Kathy Hilton of the Hilton Hotel Empire looked visually upset sitting next to her daughter, Paris Hilton on Pier Morgan when they discussed her very public sex tape from her ex-boyfriend.  Does any celebrity/publicly figure above have a real case?

 

 

Paris Hilton, the heiress and owner of her own 17 perfumes lines absolutely do.  Out of the above celebrities/public figures hers is a case.  The problem with her ex-boyfriend is that he used a private home videotape for trade —to sell to mass market consumers —and Paris had not consent to authorized use of her name for commercial purpose.  (Prima Facie Case 1357)  Paris may also argue false light publicity, a publication that places her in a False Light and it has to meet a requirement that is highly offensive to a reasonable person.  This argument can go either way because she was being herself in the tape.  A case of defamation to her name, her reputation was affected and she may be able to collect special damages.  In the actual case, Rick Salomon, her ex-boyfriend agreed to pay $400,000 to Paris and a percentage of a small profit of the video that went viral across the states.  Not a good deal in my opinion given how everyone heard or seen it as it was trending as much as free music downloads on Sean Napster’s site across the wide net.

 

 

British Journalist Bashir's candid interview with prince of pop Michael Jackson

Michael Jackson’s interview by British journalist Bashir can be a case of false light publicity.  As an acting journalist, Bashir paints Jackson poorly as a 44-year-old man sauced up with a touch of disparaging words such as “disturbing.”  Bashir wants his interview and cajoles Jackson by saying phrases like “show me,” “c’mon,” “teach me,” and I am not certain by Jackson’s appearance if he is incompetent to consent (mental incapacity to consent which happens often at nursing homes).  Listening carefully to Jackson’s words, Bashir takes every opportunity for a T.V. spot accompanying him around his Neverland ranch and Las Vegas strip mall; for example, he leads Jackson to climb a tree as a false companion urging him on; he joins him as he walks around an antique store in Vegas; he walks around with his kids with their faces covered with masks.  Bashir is a journalist out to get his interview.  Jackson need not go into all of his questions. In fact, he can give him a one-liner or a Clint Eastwood’s piercing "Go ahead make my day" stare.  Jackson should have been prepped by his publicist or someone in his personal circle in drawing lines with outside contacts especially journalists.  But not everyone is as suave as former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.      

  

 

Normal Mailer's affair with Carole Mallory

Mallory's book Loving Mailer

As a public figure, you have to be careful who you keep in your personal circle.  If you are a celebrity or a public figure, you may have lovers, friends, and even family members come forward and breach your trust by writing a tell-all book.  (Jennifer Aniston’s mother gave an interview to the tabloids for money and wrote a book on raising her; Normal Mailer’s love affair with Carole Mallory ended with her writing a book about him and selling his letters to a University; Berg A Scott, a biographer to Katherine Hepburn was criticized by then gossip columnist Liz Smith of his portrayal of Hepburn as an “absolute betrayal of friendship;” Farrah Fawcett’s ex-boyfriend and ex-convict claimed she was the love of his life but embezzled money from funds she had set up as her employee; Princess Diana again had her guards down when her speech coach sold tapes of their recorded sessions together for money.)  Because they were not your doctor, lawyer, dentist, therapist, trainer, no breach in client relationship had occurred.

 

 

Marilyn Monroe on the set of Misfits

Marilyn Monroe with her childhood hero Clark Gable on the set of both of their last movie The Misfits

Your boyfriend/ex-boyfriends and spouse/ex-spouses may reveal private information about you that is not considered privileged (you may have heard the term client privilege) and no invasion of privacy is on your side of the case.  I have seen this happen with celebrities with those they no longer have kept in touch with in their lives.  Your spouse can publicly humiliate you this way.  They can say something about you nonchalantly but nevertheless it was in public, and so it runs and gushes down the public stream like a cascading waterfall on the edge.  Tony Parker has done so with his previous wife who said she was heartbroken; Michael Douglas has also.  And who can forget Marilyn Monroe’s marriage to writer Arthur Miller who humiliated his own wife in the movie The Misfits which he said he had written out of his loving gesture. 

 

 

Considered outrageous and newsworthy (legitimate public interest), the laws protect the press to print materials that is within the public’s interest to know (Neff v Time, Inc.  406 F. Supp. 858).  The real question we should ask is:  Was it considered a public record like your birth certificate?  Did the public have the right to know?  If yes, then no privacy had been invaded.  What about when personal information is revealed to a friend/confident?  That is not up for public observation or inspection.  But watch out what you reveal to your friends and families because they do not owe you a thing.  Certain information is not public but private and the courts interpret the law as well as the juries in a case’s decision.  If their shared information is false, you may have a slander/libel/defamation case.      

 

 

Barack Obama stirs talks of a legitimate birth certificate

Actor/Director Clint Eastwood

Former President Barack Obama may have had a libel case when accusations questioning his citizenship came forward.  It can be considered a libel case because it causes people to question his integrity as president of the U.S.  A libel case discourages others from dealing with the person because of what they said affecting their business, property, etc.  Former reality T.V. cast member Melissa of MTV’s Real World New Orleans, for example confronts Julie in Real World/Road Rules Battle of the Sexes Challenge that Julie had said things about her as a public speaker for 3 years at college lectures that would disparage them from hiring her.  That was a statement that is not defamatory but false.  Julie said false things about Melissa to promote herself as a public speaker while demoting Melissa’s.  Melissa had every right to be upset and she was right to end her friendship with Julie.  Lauren Conrad on MTV’s The Hills had it out with her former friend Heidi, an accomplice to her boyfriend Spencer’s fabricated rumor of her which involves another tape.  The rumor is completely false and defamatory on Lauren’s reputation.  Lauren had to end the friendship with Heidi.  On the other hand, Rosie O’Donnell’s open remark of Donald Trump as a “snake oil salesman” when his name came up in the news for giving a second chance to Ms. USA for his annual Ms. USA beauty pageant on The View, a national television broadcast ABC may have been decided in favor of the defendant and her exercising of her First Amendment right to freedom of speech or for the plaintiff’s for an argument of slander per se; either way it would have been tough sell to the judge to decide on slander per se which grants a general damage without showing the actual damage to business and reputation.  Because Rosie talked about Donald’s incompetency in referring to his profession, a lawyer can argue for slander per se which automatically grants general damages as long as intent was evident.  If a person slander against another regarding 4 subject matters, the case is actionable per se or slander per se and no special damage has to be proven but awards a general damage:  a loathsome disease, unchaste, a serious crime never committed, and incompetency at one’s job. The judge would decide on Rosie’s intent in her remark on Trump and his professions that were nationally televised on a daytime talk show —did she say that to be funny on T.V. or did she really say it to demean Trump.  What was her motive?  Rosie further takes a jab on his reputation from her open remark on his Ms. USA pageant, personal history with women, and character.  Judge would decide on the meaning of what she had said.  In my opinion, Rosie can be bullying and Trump should just steer clear of Rosie.  Ellen DeGeneres’ openly coming out on Time magazine and her sitcom on ABC as a gay woman surprised everyone.  It begs the question:  Was she pressured or felt obligated to come out.  If she felt obligated or pressured to do so, she may have a case which affected her business, people not wanting to do business or associating with her.  It affected her business briefly then and ABC pulled the plug on her sitcom, but she started over and successfully bounced back with her Emmy-winning daytime talk show.  But the most atrocious case had to be Clint Eastwood’s suit against National Enquirer in the 9^th Circuit of U.S. Court of Appeals in Los Angeles which completely fabricated a false interview of Eastwood on their front cover to impulse readers to buy their printed material by misappropriating his name that was in violation of the Lanham Act.                        

  

 

John F. Kennedy Jr. playing at the park

John F Kennedy Jr.'s People's Sexiest Man Alive 1988 cover 

John F. Kennedy Jr. was a regular aim for paparazzi.  They camped out by his brownstone in New York City.  They took photos of him hanging out in the city.  Pictures of him roller-blading around the city baring his chest in his shorts and sunglasses were plastered all over the tabloids.  As a subject of the press, he gave them free materials to print.  He had an ongoing love-and-hate relationship with the press.  But that made people like him more.  But I have to ask:  Gee, is this really your top story?

 

 

Michael Jackson and his kids 

Madonna with her baby daughter Lourdes

Madonna on the cover of March 1998 issue of Vanity Fair 

The dilemma deepens as children get delved into the shuffle.  The problem for the parents of celebrities’ kids is that paparazzi are making money off of their pictures.  The paparazzi make anywhere from 5 cents to $5000 to $50,000 a shot.  Michael Jackson had his kids’ faces initially covered with masks and thin cloths only fueling the media to paint him as an eccentric, unstable character adding to his bizarre behavior.  Natalie Portman covered her kid’s face when paparazzi took too many snaps at the airport.  Jodie Foster had to confront paparazzi at the airport about keeping distance from her children.  But Madonna handled it fashionably and in a timely manner by posing with her baby Lourdes on her lap in March 1998 issue of Vanity Fair.  Paparazzi were decking out in front of her mansion in Miami, Florida unable to get a real snapshot from her high-rising fences surrounding her house; falling short of a real picture, they were only able to come up with a shot of her nanny holding a baby wrapped in a blanket.  It was newsworthy and the time came for her to initiate the photo shoot and get the hush hush out.  In return, Vanity Fair sold off the shelves like hot cakes for that month.  Boom!           

 

 

Gretta Garbo's bedroom

Gretta Garbo's living room

Gretta Garbo's former apartment on E52nd Street in NYC

Gretta Garbo, Hollywood actress from 1920s-30s

That is the price of fame.  Unless you stay-in most of the day at your spacious cul-de-sac with a sweeping view of the East River taking over the entire 5th floor on the East side like black-and-white film siren and seductress Gretta Garbo had done after her retirement from the screens, the paparazzi can be everywhere.  But since then, numbers of celebrities came forward to contest their rights to privacy against these flashing photographers.  Some embrace the media and steer it to their advantage keeping the fans at breast and updated. 

 

 

Journalists are not your friends.  No matter what they tell you, they are after one thing:  a story that sells.  They follow you.  They work to get a dish on you.  And they get paid for it.

 

 

Here is my experience with a particular group of girls tagged as “journalists.”  This batch of girls lacked professionalism.  First sign that told me so was a significant absence of my consent in the process.  In any professional set-up, person normally contacts you via phone, mail, e-mail and asks you for your participation.  But no —not this group.  But that was also to my credit:  I am not dealing with high caliber professional . . . so just how good can she be? 

 

 

And she made numerous mistakes that can be held accountable in court.  First, they followed me . . . everywhere.   Oops.  Major intrusion of privacy committed as no person can follow any person in a place that is not deemed public.  Other than public places like parks, restaurants (outdoor), airports, a private dwelling is private.  Your medical information is protected by the law (HIPAA 1996).  Financials are also protected by the law (Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978; Fair Credit Reporting Act).

 

 

Secondly, use of intimidation can be held liable in criminal court.  Any use of violence or intimidation can be held accountable in court.  Specifically coined Duress, Coercion, and Assault a person may feel coerced or may have felt apprehension into doing something they normally would not have.  If a person feels slightly uncomfortable, the perpetrator may have used a mild form of harassment.    

 

 

A journalist who is liberal in her strong choice of words and speech is more likely to be held for libel and defamation.  If any of their printed material is false or defamatory, everyone involved in the process is held liable — staff writer, editor, senior editor, editor-in-chief —everyone in the food chain goes down.  Well, except for the vendor that sells the papers at newsstands.   Well, except for the vendor that sells the papers at newsstands.  And so that one staff writer who wrote a false story or defamatory portrait of a public figure gets everyone else splattered with the pancake mix; editors with expert eyes would catch the mistake and/or correct/fact-check with the writer that was responsible for the story and deem accordingly if the story goes to final print for public viewership. 

 

 

And a journalist should not be so careless in her choice of words.  It only reduces her credibility to her readers and depreciates the value of the publication as a credible news source.  And her words were careless.  It is not my grammar dear but your sloppy words that reduce the trust and credibility of your work . . . so work on your poorly chosen words.  Don't worry, it only takes time.  ;)