2016) - why the difference in outcome?

Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0

9 events

when toggle format	what		by	license	comment
Jun 15, 2021 at 0:03	comment	added	Craig Hicks		"the pictures, as proof of the protected journalistic claim, are also protected" --- I agree. The judge said Hill needed to show a viable case that "conspiracy" to injure was the primary factor motivating the publication, and she could not do so. Cf. Bezos and Nat. Enq. Pecker - in the end Packer was never prosecuted or sued. It's hard to prove conspiracy even for the non-politician Bezos. Were Bezos texts "in the public interest"? Probably not but they were certainly of public interest and generated a lot of clicks (=money).
Jun 14, 2021 at 20:06	comment	added	sharur		@CraigHicks I believe Hill/her lawyers could make that argument; however, it seems logical (I don't have any law or case to cite at the moment; will update if I find anything) that the pictures, as proof of the protected journalistic claim, are also protected. Note that Benjamin Franklin, in his run in with libel laws in the Hutchinson Affair, did not only publish the facts of Hutchinson's letters, but published the letters themselves as proof.
Jun 8, 2021 at 6:18	comment	added	Craig Hicks		If you hew very close to that interpretation of the law, then Katie Hill's (failed) legal argument should follow: publishing a verbal description of her having sex with a subordinate was legal because such behavior violates her congressional employment contract, but the publishing of pornographic pictures of her in sexual poses taken by her husband and distributed for the purpose of revenge should be illegal. But that's not what the court ruled. The court ruled in favor of tabloid sales.
Jun 7, 2021 at 23:51	comment	added	sharur		@CraigHicks: That's exactly the distinction I was trying to make...public interest is a matter of public good, not tabloid sales.
Jun 7, 2021 at 23:50	comment	added	sharur		@CraigHicks: I was paraphrasing a bit of commentary/summary, the gist of which I've seen multiple places (such as here: alllaw.com/articles/nolo/civil-litigation/…); the point is "public interest" isn't what the public is interested in (e.g. a scandal involving Caitlyn Jenner, transgender Olympic medalist), but is what is involved in properly running the government (e.g. a scandal involving Caitlyn Jenner, who is running for public office).
Jun 7, 2021 at 23:40	comment	added	Craig Hicks		To be more specific "of public interest", and "in the public interest" have two different meanings, and it is the former which is written into law - (AFAICS).
Jun 7, 2021 at 23:29	comment	added	Craig Hicks		While your answer contains what I think is correct content, it also contains content which I don't actually see written into the law. E.g., 'which does not necessarily mean information that the public wishes to know, but rather information the public needs to know in order to maintain the "public good"' - that seems to be an interpretation of the law. "Public interest" is a very ambiguous term, open to wide interpretation. "Public good" is subjective. AFAICS, the written law doesn't state that government figures have less protection than other figures of public interest. Where r the words?
Jun 7, 2021 at 21:24	history	edited	user35069	CC BY-SA 4.0	Corrected a few typos
Jun 7, 2021 at 21:19	history	answered	sharur	CC BY-SA 4.0