About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

35 Fed. Comm. L.J. 235 (1983)
The Effect of Passage of Time on the Status of Inactive Public Figures

handle is hein.journals/fedcom35 and id is 245 raw text is: The Effect of Passage of Time on the Status of Inactive Public Figures INTRODUCTION Tort law traditionally has recognized an individual's inter- est in how she is portrayed to the general public.' Protection of these portrayal interests has been translated into the com- mon law actions of defamation and invasion of privacy. Whatever differences might exist between these torts, it can be safely said that portrayal interest actions seek compensation for the dissemination of certain information that damages an individual.2 Constitutional law, however, has recognized the public's interest in the dissemination of information. The Supreme Court has acknowledged the relationship between the First Amendment freedom of the press and self-government,4 al- though a free press certainly serves other functions besides the maintenance of self-government.5 The basic theory behind press protection in this context is this: If the media are fearful of large judgments in defamation and privacy actions brought 1. Slander was first recognized in the Middle Ages; libel can be traced to Eng- land in the early 1600's; privacy, a fairly recent development in the law, can be traced to, among others, Warren & Brandeis, The Right to Privacy, 4 HARV. L. REV. 193 (1890). See generally M. FRANKLIN, MASS MEDIA LAW 288-89, 364-66 (1977). 2. See generally W. PROSSER, HANDBOOK OF THE LAW OF TORTS (4th ed. 1971). For a discussion of the various privacy torts, see infra note 11. 3. Such protection in this context began principally with the landmark deci- sion of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964). Wolston v. Reader's Digest Assn., Inc., 443 U.S. 157, 163 (1979); Time, Inc. v. Firestone, 424 U.S. 448, 453 (1976); Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 340-41 (1974); Ro- senbloom v. Metromedia, Inc., 403 U.S. 29, 40-45 (1971) (plurality opinion); Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130, 146-51 (1967) (plurality opinion); id at 162 (Warren, C.J., concurring in result); Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374, 388 (1967). 4. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. at 270. See generally A. MEIKLEJOHN, FREE SPEECH AND ITS RELATION TO SELF-GOVERNMENT (1948). 5. See generally J.S. MILL, ON LIBERTY (1947); Baker, Scope of the First Amendment Freedom of Speech, 25 U.C.L.A. L. REv. 964 (1978).

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most