You have asked for research on the subject of false light claims made in the context of social media posts. The tort of false light is a narrower tort within the broader class of torts classified as invasions of privacy. Accordingly, part one of this memorandum will articulate the historical significance of the invasion of privacy torts, whereas part two will address more specifically the requirements of false light.
I. Invasion of Privacy
The tort of false light is not a fee-standing tort of its own, but a subset of a broader class of torts affording a remedy for damages caused by an invasion of privacy. See Lawrence v. A.S. Abell Co., 299 Md. 697, 701 (1984). This class of torts—often referred to as the Brandeis torts—have their genesis in an 1890 article written by Brandeis wherein he argued that the deteriorating cultural norm of the time had resulted in the usurpation of “obvious bounds of propriety and of decency.” Brandeis, The Right to Privacy, 4 Harv. L. Rev. 193 (1890). To remedy this ill, he claimed that the law needed a mechanism to compensate individuals injured by such indecency, and that “[t]he design of the law must be to protect those persons with whose affairs the community has no legitimate concern, from being dragged into an undesirable and undesired publicity and to protect all persons, whatsoever; their position or station, from having matters which they may properly prefer to keep private, made public against their will.” Id. Critically, Brandise distinguished the invasions of privacy torts from libel and slander, because he claimed that liber, slander, and defamation were designed to protect “physical property to certain of the conditions necessary or helpful to worldly prosperity,” i.e. the money value of the damage caused by those actions. Id. The invasion of privacy torts, on the other hand, aim to establish “principle upon which compensation can be granted for mere injury to the feelings.” Id. Almost a century later, the Maryland Court of Appeals articulated the purpose for the Brandeis torts as follows: [T]he increased complexity and intensity of modern civilization and the development of man’s spiritual sensibilities have rendered man more sensitive to publicity and have increased his need of privacy, while the great technological improvements in the means of communication have more and more subjected the intimacies of his private life to exploitation by those who pander to commercialism and to prurient and idle curiosity. A legally enforceable right of privacy is deemed to be a proper protection against this type of encroachment upon the personality of the individual. Lawrence, 299 Md. at 700 (internal quotations omitted). Query how appropriate it is for the it is for the judiciary to decree that that our changing culture calls for grater protections for a person’s “need of privacy.” Nevertheless, Maryland recognizes the tor of invasion of privacy. …show more content…
Id. The challenge, however, is that the traditional tort of defamation, libel, and slander—as Brandeis noted—were affixed to a person’s property interest that has been injured. Accordingly, it is, relatively, easy to attribute damages to such torts because the damages represent an objective and stationary variable upon which to determine if the tort has been committed. The invasion of privacy torts, on the other hand, become actionable when a publication is made in which “the community has no legitimate concern.” Brandeis, supra. Accordingly, the tort—by its very nature—necessarily requires a court to engage in the inherently political determination as to what publications go beyond “obvious bounds of propriety and of decency.” This history is relevant, if nothing else, because by making a false light claim, the plaintiff is asking the court to hold not only that he was placed in a false light, but the defendants’ actions in “liking” and “sharing” other people’s …show more content…
When personal gossip attains the dignity of print, and crowds the space available for matters of real interest to the community, what wonder that the ignorant and thoughtless mistake its relative importance. Easy of comprehension, appealing to that weak side of human nature which is never wholly cast down by the misfortunes and frailties of our neighbors, no one can be surprised that it usurps the place of interest in brains capable of other things. Triviality destroys at once robustness of thought and delicacy of feeling. No enthusiasm can flourish, no generous impulse can survive under its blighting
I. Invasion of Privacy
The tort of false light is not a fee-standing tort of its own, but a subset of a broader class of torts affording a remedy for damages caused by an invasion of privacy. See Lawrence v. A.S. Abell Co., 299 Md. 697, 701 (1984). This class of torts—often referred to as the Brandeis torts—have their genesis in an 1890 article written by Brandeis wherein he argued that the deteriorating cultural norm of the time had resulted in the usurpation of “obvious bounds of propriety and of decency.” Brandeis, The Right to Privacy, 4 Harv. L. Rev. 193 (1890). To remedy this ill, he claimed that the law needed a mechanism to compensate individuals injured by such indecency, and that “[t]he design of the law must be to protect those persons with whose affairs the community has no legitimate concern, from being dragged into an undesirable and undesired publicity and to protect all persons, whatsoever; their position or station, from having matters which they may properly prefer to keep private, made public against their will.” Id. Critically, Brandise distinguished the invasions of privacy torts from libel and slander, because he claimed that liber, slander, and defamation were designed to protect “physical property to certain of the conditions necessary or helpful to worldly prosperity,” i.e. the money value of the damage caused by those actions. Id. The invasion of privacy torts, on the other hand, aim to establish “principle upon which compensation can be granted for mere injury to the feelings.” Id. Almost a century later, the Maryland Court of Appeals articulated the purpose for the Brandeis torts as follows: [T]he increased complexity and intensity of modern civilization and the development of man’s spiritual sensibilities have rendered man more sensitive to publicity and have increased his need of privacy, while the great technological improvements in the means of communication have more and more subjected the intimacies of his private life to exploitation by those who pander to commercialism and to prurient and idle curiosity. A legally enforceable right of privacy is deemed to be a proper protection against this type of encroachment upon the personality of the individual. Lawrence, 299 Md. at 700 (internal quotations omitted). Query how appropriate it is for the it is for the judiciary to decree that that our changing culture calls for grater protections for a person’s “need of privacy.” Nevertheless, Maryland recognizes the tor of invasion of privacy. …show more content…
Id. The challenge, however, is that the traditional tort of defamation, libel, and slander—as Brandeis noted—were affixed to a person’s property interest that has been injured. Accordingly, it is, relatively, easy to attribute damages to such torts because the damages represent an objective and stationary variable upon which to determine if the tort has been committed. The invasion of privacy torts, on the other hand, become actionable when a publication is made in which “the community has no legitimate concern.” Brandeis, supra. Accordingly, the tort—by its very nature—necessarily requires a court to engage in the inherently political determination as to what publications go beyond “obvious bounds of propriety and of decency.” This history is relevant, if nothing else, because by making a false light claim, the plaintiff is asking the court to hold not only that he was placed in a false light, but the defendants’ actions in “liking” and “sharing” other people’s …show more content…
When personal gossip attains the dignity of print, and crowds the space available for matters of real interest to the community, what wonder that the ignorant and thoughtless mistake its relative importance. Easy of comprehension, appealing to that weak side of human nature which is never wholly cast down by the misfortunes and frailties of our neighbors, no one can be surprised that it usurps the place of interest in brains capable of other things. Triviality destroys at once robustness of thought and delicacy of feeling. No enthusiasm can flourish, no generous impulse can survive under its blighting