Warenwig V. American Press For Intrusion Case Summary

The case we received was Ed Franklin, a former teacher at public and private schools in Minersville, pled guilty to state criminal charges of sexually molesting several of his former students. One of Franklin's victims was invited to appear at Franklin’s sentencing hearing in order to testify about the impact of the molestation. While the hearing was open to the press and public, the judge ordered the reporters present not to identify any of the sexual assault victims in press accounts of the sentencing. None of the reporters present at the hearing raised any objection to the judge’s order. Despite the order, a reporter for the American Press news syndicate included the victim’s name in coverage of the hearing. The victim sued American Press for intrusion, publication of private facts and infliction of emotional distress. The victim sued the American Press for intrusion. Intrusion on a seclusion claim is a special incident of invasion of privacy. It is implied when someone intentionally intrudes physically or seclusion of another. However, for an intrusion claim to be made a plaintiff has to establish four elements. First, the
defendant would have to intentionally invade the private affairs of the plaintiff. Secondly, the invasion has to be offensive. Third, the defendant invasion has to be a private matter. Lastly, the intrusion must have had a mental or suffering pain. However, in this case the intrusion doesn't take the form of a physical trespass. The American Press didn't intentionally invade the private affairs of the victim because it was a public hearing.
In the Nussenwig vs Dicorcia case the photography took photos of people walking Times Square. Then he turn the photos in to make an art gallery, Dicorcia sues because he feels it’s invade he’s privacy. Dicorcia was walking in Times Square where there thousands of people everyday. In the Ed Franklin case there is a public hearing so their isn't a expectation for public privacy. Secondly, the American Press wasn't trying to oftend the victim they were stating facts of the case. Thirdly, the American press didn't intrude because it was a public hearing in session. Lastly, emotional distress can be omit it isn't severe because all four criteria isn't met. The victim also didn't act with reckless behavior or mental
suffering. In this case it’s a concern to the public because the public could know what’s going on in public and private schools. The public should also beware of the sex offender Ed Franklin. In many cases such as the Moreno vs Hanford Sentinel facts were no longer private when accepting an invitation to a public trial. In the Sippel vs. Chronicle, publishing just because the victim doesn't want her name identify doesn't mean it cant be publish. Also, the judge doesn’t have the right to ask the journalist to protect the victims identify. The judge cant stop press freedom meaning the media aren't subject to censorship by the government. The government can’t stop ideas before they are published that’s unconstitutional. In conclusion the case was a public hearing meaning it was not longer a private fact. The public’s right to know comes from the constitutional right to free press in the first amendment. Making court cases accessible to the public and the press.