About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


9 First Amend. L. Rev. 546 (2010-2011)
When Even the Truth isn't Good Enough: Judicial Inconsistency in False Light Cases Threatens Free Speech

handle is hein.journals/falr9 and id is 552 raw text is: WHEN EVEN THE TRUTH ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH: JUDICIAL INCONSISTENCY IN FALSE LIGHT CASES THREATENS FREE SPEECH BY SANDRA F. CHANCE* & CHRISTINA M. LOCKE Journalists are taught that truthful reporting is the best defense to a lawsuit. However, Florida journalists who reported the truth lost a staggering $18-million false light invasion of privacy lawsuit. The verdict was ultimately overturned by the Florida Supreme Court, which repudiated the tort as duplicative of libel law without the First Amendment protections. However, an appellate court in Missouri specifically recognized the tort in a case involving technology and the Internet within two months of the Florida decision. Using the most recent appellate false light cases, the Article examines the potential for false light to stifle the media, especially when truthful news content is targeted This article concludes that the tort offalse light is inconsistent with First Amendment values and historic protections for journalists and must not be used to make an end-run around the First Amendment. In 1988, an Oklahoma jury found Ronald Williamson and Dennis Fritz guilty of rape and murder, a conviction that was later overturned.' More than 20 years later, their story was the subject of a lawsuit alleging, among other claims, false light invasion of privacy.2 The prosecutor and law enforcement officials involved in the initial * McClatchy Professor of Freedom of Information at the University of Florida College of Journalism and Communications and Executive Director of the Brechner Center for Freedom of Information. Member, State Bar of Florida. ** Joseph L. and Marion 1. Brechner Research Fellow, University of Florida. Member, State Bar of Georgia. 1. Peterson v. Grisham, 594 F.3d 723, 725 (10th Cir. 2010). Williamson and Fritz spent more than a decade in jail before being exonerated. They were convicted of a 1982 rape and murder based primarily on hair samples, jailhouse informant testimony, and Williamson's statement to police that he had a dream in which he committed the murder. In 1999, DNA testing showed that neither Williamson nor Fritz could have contributed the hair or semen samples found at the crime scene. Id. 2. Id. at 727.