Samantha Barbas

Newsworthy

The Supreme Court Battle Over Privacy and Press Freedom

• Gebundenes Buch

Produktbeschreibung

Samantha Barbas is Professor of Law at University at Buffalo Law School. She is the author of three books: Movie Crazy: Fans, Stars, and the Cult of Celebrity (2001), The First Lady of Hollywood: A Biography of Louella Parsons (2005), and Laws of Image (Stanford, 2015). She has provided legal commentary for The New York Times, The Guardian, and The Washington Post.

---

Hinweis: Dieser Artikel kann nur an eine deutsche Lieferadresse ausgeliefert werden.

Produktdetails

• Verlag: Stanford University Press
• Seitenzahl: 352
• Erscheinungstermin: 18. Januar 2017
• Englisch
• Abmessung: 231mm x 160mm x 30mm
• Gewicht: 599g
• ISBN-13: 9780804797108
• ISBN-10: 0804797102
• Artikelnr.: 45000912

Autorenporträt

Samantha Barbas is Professor of Law at University at Buffalo Law School. She is the author of three books: Movie Crazy: Fans, Stars, and the Cult of Celebrity (2001), The First Lady of Hollywood: A Biography of Louella Parsons (2005), and Laws of Image (Stanford, 2015). She has provided legal commentary for The New York Times, The Guardian, and The Washington Post.

Inhaltsangabe

Contents and Abstracts
1The Whitemarsh Incident
chapter abstract
This chapter describes the "hostage incident" that initiated the Time, Inc.
v. Hill case. In 1952, the James Hill family was held hostage in their home
by three escaped convicts, who left without harming them. The story of the
crime was written up in the press, and the incident inspired a novel, play,
and film titled The Desperate Hours.
2Fact into Fiction
chapter abstract
In 1954, Joseph Hayes wrote The Desperate Hours, a "true-crime thriller"
based loosely on the hostage incident involving the Hill family. The
Desperate Hours became a bestseller; it was adapted into a play, and in
1955, a Hollywood film starring Humphrey Bogart.
3The Article
chapter abstract
In 1955, Life magazine published an article announcing the opening of the
play The Desperate Hours. The article falsely described the play as a
"reenactment" of the Hills' hostage incident. This chapter tells the story
of the writing of the article, and gives background information on Life's
publisher, Time, Inc. It describes the Hills' reaction to the article,
which thrust them into the spotlight against their will and portrayed them
in a false, distorted context.
4The Lawsuit
chapter abstract
Shortly after the publication of the Life article, James Hill filed suit
against Time, Inc., alleging an invasion of his privacy. The Hill family
was represented by Leonard Garment, a young, up-and-coming lawyer at the
New York law firm Mudge, Stern, Baldwin, and Todd.
5Privacy
chapter abstract
This chapter describes the origins of the tort action for invasion of
privacy, the basis of the Hills' lawsuit against Time, Inc.
6Freedom of the Press
chapter abstract
At the same time the right to privacy was developing in the early twentieth
century, courts were limiting the privacy tort in the interest in freedom
of the press. By the 1950s, the right to privacy and freedom of the press
were on a collision course, and the Hills' case would be at their juncture.
7Suing the Press
chapter abstract
This chapter describes Time, Inc.'s response to the Hills' lawsuit, and the
legal department at Time, Inc. In the mid-twentieth century, lawyers at
major media companies like Time, Inc. were major forces in the creation of
modern First Amendment law.
8Maneuvers
chapter abstract
This chapter describes the ongoing impact of the Life article on the Hill
family, the initial stages of the Hills' lawsuit, and the contested social
terrain on which it was fought. In the 1950s, some courts, against the
backdrop of increasing anti-press sentiment, were expanding the privacy
tort. Others, reflecting growing sensitivities towards civil liberties in
the postwar era, were diminishing the right to privacy in the name of First
Amendment freedoms.
9The Trial
chapter abstract
In the trial of Hill v. Hayes in 1962, a jury concluded that Time, Inc. had
invaded the privacy of the Hill family and awarded them $175,000, the
largest invasion of privacy verdict in history.
10The Privacy Panic
chapter abstract
The Hills' lawsuit against Time, Inc. took place at a time of great anxiety
around personal privacy. In the 1950s and 60s, "privacy," in all its
meanings and senses, was seemingly under assault by an array of forces: the
media, the government, researchers, advertisers, and marketers, armed with
new surveillance and monitoring technologies. There was a "privacy panic"
in the postwar era, and it influenced the course of the Hill case.
11Appeals
chapter abstract
In May 1963, an appeals court upheld the judgment against Time, Inc.
12Griswold
chapter abstract
Shortly after Time, Inc. announced its intent to appeal to the U.S. Supreme
Court in 1965, the Court issued its decision in Griswold v. Connecticut,
announcing a "right to privacy" in the Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of
Rights. Like New York Times v. Sullivan, Griswold complicated the Hill
case. Not only a right protected by tort law, privacy was now potentially a
broad, general right guaranteed by the Constitution.
13Nixon
chapter abstract
In 1965, the Hills acquired an unexpected advocate. Two years earlier, the
former Senator, Vice-President, and presidential candidate Richard Nixon
joined the Mudge law firm. Nixon would argue the Hills' case before the
Supreme Court. The case became an integral part of Nixon's efforts to
rehabilitate his public image during his "Wilderness Years," the six-year
span between his failed run for the California governorship in 1962 and his
election as President in 1968.
14At the Court
chapter abstract
Against the backdrop of cultural concerns with privacy and press ethics,
and in the shadow of Sullivan and Griswold, Time, Inc. v. Hill came to the
Supreme Court freighted with a good deal of significance. The case tapped
into pressing social issues: the future of privacy in the information
society, the meaning of "the news," the boundaries of freedom of the press
in the age of big media. It also raised questions of constitutional
doctrine that were contested on the Court - the status of the
constitutional right to privacy, and possible extensions of the New York
Times v. Sullivan doctrine.
15Decisions
chapter abstract
After arguments by Nixon and Harold R. Medina, Jr., representing Time,
Inc., the Supreme Court initially came down on the side of privacy. A 6-3
majority decided in favor of the Hills, upholding the judgment of the New
York courts. Expanding the "right to privacy" established in the Griswold
decision, the majority opinion, written by Justice Abe Fortas, declared
that the Hills had a constitutional right to privacy that could be invoked
not only against the government, but also private actors like the press.
Ultimately, however, the Court changed its mind. As a result of lobbying by
Justice Hugo Black, a First Amendment absolutist, votes switched, and a new
majority voted in favor of Time, Inc.
16January 9, 1967
chapter abstract
William Brennan wrote the majority opinion in Time, Inc. v. Hill, issued in
January 1967. Invoking the New York Times v. Sullivan standard, Brennan
held that the Hills could not recover for invasion of privacy unless they
could show that Life's story about them was false, and that the falsehood
was made with reckless disregard of the truth. The Brennan opinion
announced a capacious vision of freedom of the press, perhaps the broadest
in the Supreme Court's history to that time.
17The Aftermath
chapter abstract
Time, Inc. v. Hill transformed the meaning of freedom of the press and the
scope of the right to privacy in the United States. Time, Inc. v. Hill set
forth an expansive vision of freedom of the press and dimmed the potential
for a strong right to privacy that could be invoked against the press. This
chapter examines the short and long-term consequences of the Hill decision
on politics, publishing, and the First Amendment.