Quick Summary
Cox Broadcasting Corp. (defendant) and reporter Wassell (defendant) faced a lawsuit from Cohn (plaintiff) after broadcasting the name of Cohn’s deceased daughter, a rape victim, which they obtained from public court documents.
The dispute centered on whether this broadcast constituted an invasion of privacy under Georgia law, and whether such a state law was compatible with constitutional protections for freedom of speech and press.
The United States Supreme Court concluded that publishing information from public records is protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments, thus reversing the state’s decision in favor of Cohn.
Facts of the Case
The plaintiff, Cohn, experienced a tragedy when his 17-year-old daughter was raped and killed by six youths. The crime and subsequent trial were widely covered by the media, yet the victim’s identity remained undisclosed, in compliance with Georgia’s privacy statute.
Wassell, a reporter for Cox Broadcasting Corp. (defendant), legally obtained the victim’s name from public judicial records and broadcasted it, leading Cohn to sue for damages claiming invasion of privacy under the Georgia statute.
Cox Broadcasting Corp. (defendant) and Wassell (defendant) argued that the broadcast was privileged under state law and the First and Fourteenth Amendments, contending that they were protected from liability for reporting information from public records. The trial court ruled in favor of Cohn (plaintiff), and Cox appealed.
Procedural History
- Georgia statute made it a misdemeanor to publish or broadcast a rape victim’s name.
- Reporter Wassell obtained the victim’s name from public records and broadcast it.
- Cohn sued Cox Broadcasting and Wassell for invasion of privacy.
- The trial court ruled in favor of Cohn.
- Cox Broadcasting appealed to the Supreme Court of Georgia, which initially focused on state law before addressing the constitutionality of the statute.
- Upon rehearing, the Georgia Supreme Court upheld the statute and Cohn’s right to a privacy tort claim, leading to Cox Broadcasting’s appeal to the United States Supreme Court.
I.R.A.C. Format
Issue
Whether the First and Fourteenth Amendments allow a state to extend a cause of action for damages for invasion of privacy caused by the publication of the name of a deceased rape victim which was publicly revealed in connection with the prosecution of the crime.
Rule of Law
The court applied constitutional principles concerning freedom of speech and press, as well as considerations regarding public records and the public interest in the operations of government.
Reasoning and Analysis
The court reasoned that the press plays an essential role in democracy by reporting on the operations of government, including judicial proceedings. It emphasized that judicial records are public property and reporting their contents contributes to public scrutiny ensuring fairness in trials.
The court also noted that while privacy is important, once information is made public via official court documents, its publication by the press cannot be penalized under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, as such restrictions would lead to self-censorship and suppress information of public significance.
Conclusion
The United States Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Georgia Supreme Court, holding that the First and Fourteenth Amendments barred civil liability for broadcasting a rape victim’s name when it was obtained from public records associated with a public prosecution.
Key Takeaways
- The First and Fourteenth Amendments protect the press from liability for publishing truthful information from official court records open to public inspection.
- Public interest in governmental operations justifies the publication of information contained in public records.
- The state cannot penalize the press for reporting on judicial proceedings, as doing so would conflict with constitutional freedoms and the public’s right to know.
Relevant FAQs of this case
What protections does the First Amendment provide regarding the press and matters of public concern?
The First Amendment protects the freedom of the press, which includes the right to communicate and publish information on matters of public concern without government interference or prior restraint. This protection is essential for a free and informed society, allowing for public oversight of governmental affairs and contributing to democratic discourse.
- For example: A newspaper publishing an investigative piece on a local politician’s public voting record is protected under the First Amendment, since it pertains to public concern and involves information that can be verified through publicly available legislative documents.
How do courts balance the right to privacy with freedom of the press in relation to truthful information obtained from public records?
Courts balance these interests by considering whether the publication is a matter of legitimate public concern and whether the information was lawfully acquired from publicly available documents. If both conditions are met, publications are generally protected under the First Amendment.
- For example: A journalist reporting on a public official’s financial disclosures, which reveal a conflict of interest, is protected even if it raises privacy concerns because the disclosures are public records and the conflict is a matter of legitimate public interest.
Under what circumstances can the publication of private facts about individuals be protected under constitutional freedoms?
The publication of private facts may be constitutionally protected if those facts have become a matter of public significance or concern, especially when related to legal proceedings or governmental operations where transparency serves democratic values.
- For example: Publishing details about a CEO’s business practices may be protected if obtained from court proceedings involving allegations of fraud, as this would be pertinent to consumer and shareholder interests.
References
Was this case brief helpful?