1. Which of the four privacy torts are involved with regard to this case? Is this a case of libel?
Libels as well with the invasion of privacy are two very important issues in communication law. Libel denotes to anything falsely printed and observed communication created of an individual with the intent to denigrate that individual. It is a printed depiction transmitting an unfair and inauspicious notion primed with the aim of spoiling an individual's repute. If the accused is capable of illustrating that the derogatory proclamation is fundamentally accurate, then the claimant's claim for libel will be unsuccessful. The publication requires solely be to a single individual, however it ought to be a declaration which declares to be reality, and is not obviously recognized as a view. Whereas it is at times supposed that the individual generating the libellous declaration must have been deliberate and malevolent, actually it requires merely be palpable that the declaration would do damage and is fallacious. Evidences of malevolence, although, do permit a party denigrated to take legal action for general compensation, for damage to repute; whilst an unintentional libel confines the compensation to definite harms known as special damages or compensation. Libel per se entails declarations so fierce that malevolence is assumed thus does not necessitate an evidence of purpose to get a prize for broad indemnity. Libel in opposition to the repute of an individual who has passed on will permit existing family members to convey a deed for compensation. Most states offer for a person denigrated by a publication to a published renunciation. If the rectification is done, therefore there is no right to file a claim. The Governmental cadavers are allegedly protected for deeds for libel on the grounds that there could be no intention by a non-personal being, and additionally, public accounts are free from the tort of libel.
Invasion of privacy is the incursion into the individual existence of another individual, without factual reasons, which can provide the individual whose confidentiality has been attacked a right to sue for compensation against the individual or body that encroached it. It includes place of data collection, work monitoring, Internet privacy, and other ways of distributing private information. Under this tort, celebrities are not shielded, as they have willingly positioned themselves in the public domain, and their performance are measured as exciting. Conversely, an or else private person has a right to privacy from interference on one's privacy or into an individual's private dealings and from public exposé of discomforting confidential information in addition to publicity which places the individual in a false light towards the general public domain. The individual is also protected from appropriation of an individual's name or portrait for individualistic or mercantile benefit.
The Supreme Court has once decided that there is a restricted legal right of privacy rooted in various requirements within the Bill of Rights and successive adjustments. This incorporates a right to privacy particularly from government observation into a region where an individual possesses a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Invasion of privacy tort actually does have strapping ties with libel. Although it does harm an individual or institute's personality, it entails how the information is got hold of. Basically put, privacy laws involves an individual's right to be left alone (Linda, 2008).
There are four torts that entail the infringement on one’s privacy. They include intrusion, appropriation, false light and information of private facts. Intrusion is the definite physical infringement of an individual's privacy in other words trespassing to get hold of private information. The second tort is known as appropriation. This is the commercial abuse of an individual's picture or portrait devoid of permission. The third is false light. This is when an individual depicts another in false light that is by offering false deceits. The last one involves information on private facts. This information could be true but as it is private and could relentlessly humiliate or injure an individual's standing.
Via these description and particulars on each, it is uncomplicated to perceive how both libel and invasion of privacy facts entwine and are intimately connected. From the case study involving Steve, this is not a case of libel. From the information provided, we could say that there is no false written or oral information published or distributed in case the church decides to dole out the information to the entire public. It is also not a case of libel, in that, from the facts provided, the church has no intent of malice or an intention to destroy Steve’s reputation. Besides, the church has not yet distributed the information about Steve to the general public. This disqualifies the case as a form of libel.
In conclusion, this case is not libel but invasion to privacy under the tort of information on private facts.
2. Does the expectation of privacy apply to the facts in this case?
The expectation of privacy legally denotes a principle in the existence of freedom from redundant particularly governmental interruption. The U.S. Constitution under The Fourth Amendment gives,
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." 1
The fourth amendment attempts to guard two primary rights of individuals that are freedom from random invasions and the right to privacy. With the intention of productively challenging a search or seizure as an infringement (Kevin,2009), a plaintiff is obliged to demonstrate that one had marked a biased expectation of privacy in the region of the search or seizure as well as that the expectation is similar to that the society is prepared to identify as sensible or lawful. However, a search or seizure occurs at the point of an expectation of privacy reasonable is infringed by a governmental worker or agent. Private persons not acting in both capacities are excluded from these exclusions.
The facts of the case are not adequately conclusive as it pertains this principle of expectation of privacy. This is so because the only facts provided is that Steve has a secret. We are not told if he is a government employee or agent. However, by assumption, the principle of expectation of privacy does not apply to this case.
3. Discuss the defences to the tort of libel and the privacy torts regarding Steve's lawsuit.
There are several defences that can be brought about when a lawsuit is filed when that an individual's privacy has been desecrated. Primarily, the applicant ought to be living, since the principle of shielding privacy is to thwart the exposé of close and individual issues. Perceptibly, this cannot be relevant when the information exposed is concerns dead person, Steve is alive.
In addition, when an accusation is filed based on an individual’s privacy violation by the exposure of private and humiliating facts like in the case of Steve, a defence can be brought forward that the information revealed is not obnoxious to a rational individual. Certainly, this would have to be established rooted on the details of the case.
Another defence to a lawsuit is that the information provided is of genuine apprehension to the general public in addition to it being newsworthy. But remember this newsworthy defence necessitates that it be appropriate, so whereas the theme and information could have been newsworthy in the past, the information may not be sheltered by this defence.
4. Is there a legal difference in disclosing personal indiscretions to church elders, to members of the church, or to members of the public?
The general conviction when an individual is confessing imprudence toward a sacred authority is that confidential information is sheltered. There may be stipulations inside the church permitting a superior authority to reveal the information to other superior establishments, however roughly surely not to the community. However, when the information is transferred to the members of the public then there is an invasion of privacy
Linda L., J. Stanley E, Patricia S, (2008) Tort Law for Legal Assistants, Cengage Learning
Kevin M., (2009) Invasion of Privacy Hardcore printers