Us Constitution and the Right to Privacy

The US constitution does not contain a specific right to privacy but the Bill of Rights does imply it. The ninth amendment of the Bill of Rights reads “the bill of rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people”. This amendment states that the rights of the people that are not specifically named are still equally important as the ones that are. Since the constitution does not give the government the right to violate privacy, it is said to be the same as retaining the right to privacy for the citizens. It is more of an implied right than an expressed one.
Privacy itself is closely related to the law of libel. Libel protects a person’s character and reputation and what most cases involving the first amendment are about. The Supreme Court has inferred a right to privacy from various portions of the Bill of Rights. The first amendment protects the freedoms of speech, press, religion and assembly and also an implied right to privacy in the form of one’s self-expression.
It is the need to retain the right of self-expression that causes many court cases to reach the Supreme Court. In the case of New York Times VS Sullivan, the New York Times argued just that. After spending four years in an Alabama court, the New York Times plea was heard in a US federal court before article III judges. In the 1960’s, the civil rights movement was gaining awareness and momentum. As a result, the leaders of the movement took out an ad titled “Heed their Rising Voices” in the New York Times to help raise needed funds to continue the work of the civil rights leaders to allow them to continue the fight for their cause. In this ad, some of the allegations being made about the actions being taken by some police in Alabama were exaggerated and some were untrue. For example, the ad said that police “ringed” a college where protestors were, but this charge was exaggerated. The ad also contained the false statement: “When the entire student body protested to state authorities by refusing to re-register, their dining hall was padlocked in an attempted to starve them into submission.”
A man named L.B. Sullivan was one of the people in charge of the Montgomery AL Police department at that time. Mr. Sullivan sued the New York Times for libel. Even though the article did not mention him by name, it did imply that he was partly responsible for the actions of the Montgomery Alabama police department. He claimed that his reputation had been tarnished. In the Alabama court who originally heard the case, Mr. Sullivan won and was awarded $500,000 in damages. The Times appealed to the Supreme Court arguing their attention was not to harm Sullivan in any way. They agreed that they did not check the validity of each statement in the ad. They further argued if they had to check the accuracy of every word printed in their paper about every public person, then free press would be limited.
In a unanimous decision, The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the New York Times. In order to prove libel, a “public official must show that the newspaper acted “with ‘actual malice’–that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard” for truth newspaper acted “with ‘actual malice’–that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard” for truth. The Court asserted America’s “profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.” Free and open debate about the conduct of public officials, the Court reasoned, was more important than occasional, honest factual errors that might hurt or damage officials’ reputations. The Supreme Court held that the New York Times was protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
This case needed to be interpreted by the Supreme Court because in the Alabama courts the definition of libel was very broad and threatened the states freedom of press. The Sullivan case was a huge advance for freedom of speech. It prevented genuine criticism from being silenced by the threat of damaging and expensive libel lawsuits. Sullivan has not, however, become a license for the newspapers to print anything that they want to print. Defendants who act with ill will can receive severe penalties. 2006 Gale, Cengage
In Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, another case of emotional distress and libel made it to the US Supreme Court. This case is the most recent in a long line of first amendment decisions in which the Supreme Court has extended constitutional protection to outrageous or offensive speech. In a 1983 addition of Hustler magazine was a parody relating to Fallwells “first time” being with his mother while drunk implying a sexual encounter. The ad itself was for Campari Liqueur but the nature of the ad was sarcastic and sexual in nature. The subject of the parody, Jerry Falwell, a television evangelist, brought suit against the magazine and its publisher, Larry Flint. Mr. Fallwell sued for 45 million dollars in compensation for invasion of privacy, libel and intentional infliction of emotional distress even though it was clearly stated that the parody did not depict the truth. The jury in the district court of Virginia found against respondent on the libel claim, specifically finding that the ad parody could not "reasonably be understood as describing actual facts about [respondent] or actual events in which [he] participated." The jury ruled for respondent on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, however and stated that he should be awarded $ 100,000 in compensatory damages, as well as $ 50,000 each in punitive damages from petitioners. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment against petitioners. Given the importance of the constitutional issues involved, certiorari was granted. “The United States Court of Appeals disagreed and ruled in favor of Falwell, so Hustler and Flynt took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court on the grounds that hustler has the right to print the “made up” material under the first amendment. With a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court reversed and ruled in favor of Hustler and Flynt. Writing for the Court, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said the heart of the First Amendment is the "importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern." Such matters often involve public figures. Under the First Amendment, then, publishers are allowed to print parodies about public figures. A public figure can sue for damages only when a publisher harms his reputation with lies. Because Hustler 's ad parody was not meant to be taken seriously, it was not a lie and had not injured Falwell’s reputation”.( http://www.enotes.com/hustler-magazine-inc-v-falwell-reference/hustler-magazine-v-falwell)
This case was brought to the US Supreme court after losing in the lower state court, on an appeal. Flynt felt that his right to publish the parody had been violated and that the court’s ruling had been unconstitutional and he won his right of free speech and to publish his fictitious parody. It was again specified that without purposely publishing false information with the intent to do harm, the publishing of information is upheld under the Constitution. This case also affirmed that publishing information for political debate was covered under the first amendment. When it comes to political cartoons and parody’s, the object of the humor will clearly be unhappy and even suffer from distress? Because of the broadening of the first amendment, the publishing of such information is now deemed more important than the feelings of the politicians or public officials.
These are two examples of important court cases that were overturned on appeal in the US Supreme Court and were ruled in favor of the Medias right to make stories, vies and opinions known and public for debate. The Supreme Court feels that is what our Founding Father had in mind when creating the bill of rights. The amendments were designed to broaden the rights originally offered citizens in the constitution. They were clear in limiting the Federal Governments rights to invade the privacy of the people. Their goal was to insure that the freedoms of speech and press were upheld even when it was not comfortable for those who may be affected negatively. It still remains an important freedom of our as US citizens to be able to make information, good or bad, public and the object of debate.

References:

http://www.4lawschool.com/torts/ny.shtml http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/torts/torts-keyed-to-epstein/defamation/new-york-times-co-v-sullivan/ Hopkins, W. Wat. Actual Malice: Twenty-Five Years After Times v. Sullivan. New York: Praeger, 1989
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/hustler.html

References: http://www.4lawschool.com/torts/ny.shtml http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/torts/torts-keyed-to-epstein/defamation/new-york-times-co-v-sullivan/ Hopkins, W. Wat. Actual Malice: Twenty-Five Years After Times v. Sullivan. New York: Praeger, 1989 http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/hustler.html