http://www.freedomforum.org/press/series/1999/12/privacy.timeline.asp
Timeline
1890 Harvard Law Review publishes "The Right to Privacy." 4 Harvard Law Review, pp. 193-220. Authors Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis (the future Supreme Court justice) state their case for invasion of privacy as a legal tort. More than 100 years later, privacy experts cite that article as the catalyst for all privacy law.
1893 Corliss v. Walker, 57 Fed. Rep. 434. Federal Judge LeBaron Colt rejects claims that a biography of a deceased inventor constitutes an invasion of privacy in what is considered the rst federal privacy case. Colt says that recognizing the right to privacy would restrict freedom of the press.
1903 New York passes a state privacy law that prohibits the unauthorized use of an individual's name or picture for advertising or trade purposes.
1905 Pavesich v. New England Life Ins., 122 Ga. 190. Georgia becomes the rst state in which a court legally recognizes the right to privacy.
1908 Moser v. Press Pub. Co., 109 N.Y.S. 963. A New York court rules that the use of articles and photographs in a newspaper doesn't qualify under state law as a "trade purpose" and denies a man's claim that the publication of his name and picture violated his privacy.
1930 Brandeis offers concept of "right to be let alone" in dissent in Olmstead v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438, a case involving the wiretapping of a liquor dealer.
1960 California Law Review publishes William Prosser's article "Privacy." 48 California Law Review, pp. 383-423. Prosser postulates that the concept of invasion of privacy is actually an assemblage of four related but distinct torts: intrusion, public disclosure of private facts, false light and appropriation of character for commercial use.
1967 Time Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374. The Supreme Court, in its rst privacy case involving the news media, rules against a family claiming that a photo layout in Life magazine invaded their privacy. The court determines that if a plaintiff les a false-light claim arising out of an issue of public interest, he or she is required to prove that the defendant published the article with knowledge of its falsity or in reckless disregard of the truth. Uses the standard approved in 1964 in New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254.
1974 Cantrell v. Forest City Publishing Co., 419 U.S. 245. The Supreme Court determines that The Plain Dealer of Cleveland, Ohio, knowingly or recklessly published falsehoods about the widow of man killed when an Ohio River bridge collapsed.
1974 Gertz v. Welch, 418 U.S. 323. The Supreme Court abandons the actual-malice standard for private gures, saying plaintiff didn't have to prove that a magazine acted recklessly or knowingly in publishing falsehoods against him. The decision frees states to develop their own standards of defamation for private gures.
1975 Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469. The Supreme Court overturns an award for damages imposed against a television station which broadcast the name of a rape-murder victim.
1977 Oklahoma Publishing Co. v. Oklahoma County District Court, 430 U.S. 308. The Supreme Court nds unconstitutional a state court's pretrial order enjoining the media from publishing the name or photograph of an 11-year-old boy in connection with a juvenile proceeding that the media attended.
1979 Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co., 443 U.S. 97. The Supreme Court overturns a state law forbidding newspapers from publishing the name of any youth charged as a juvenile offender.
1988 Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46. The Supreme Court holds that the Rev. Jerry Falwell, who sued Hustler alleging intentional inşiction of emotional distress, has to prove that the publication contained a false statement of fact published with knowledge or with reckless disregard as to its truth.
1989 Florida Star v. B.J.F., 491 U.S. 524. The Supreme Court strikes down a jury award against a newspaper which violated a state law forbidding publication of the name of a sexual-offense victim. But the court majority acknowledges that privacy concerns, in a similar case with different facts, might outweigh press rights.
1989 Department of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749. The Supreme Court holds that federal agencies may withhold "rap sheets" compilations of arrests, indictments, convictions or acquittals on private citizens, even though the information is public at its original source.
1991 Department of State v. Ray, 502 U.S. 164. Citing the right to privacy, the Supreme Court allows State Department ofcials to withhold records identifying refugees who were denied asylum and sent back to Haiti.
1994 Department of Defense v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 510 U.S. 487. The Supreme Court holds that home addresses of government employees should not be released to union organizers. The court says the release of the addresses serves no public interest because the information does not reşect upon government operations.
1999 Hanlon v. Berger, 119 S.Ct. 1706, and Wilson v. Layne, 119 S.Ct. 1692. The Supreme Court determines that law enforcement ofcials violate the Fourth Amendment right against unlawful searches and seizures by allowing journalists to follow them onto private property as they execute warrants.
1999 Los Angeles Police Department v. United Reporting Publishing Corp., 98-678. The Supreme Court upholds a California law that forbids the release of police-blotter information to companies that use the data for commercial purposes.
Sources: Don Pember, Privacy and the Press (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1972); Bruce Sanford, Libel and Privacy (New York: Aspen Law & Business, 1999); Barbara Dill, Journalist's Handbook on Libel and Privacy (New York: Macmillan Inc., 1986); and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.
**************************************************************************
Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA
on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per month)
Matthew Gaylor,1933 E. Dublin-Granville Rd.,#176, Columbus, OH 43229
Archived at http://www.egroups.com/list/fa/
**************************************************************************