Invacion de privacidad

Solo disponible en BuenasTareas
  • Páginas : 7 (1630 palabras )
  • Descarga(s) : 0
  • Publicado : 9 de febrero de 2011
Leer documento completo
Vista previa del texto
Invasion of Privacy and Libel Case Study
Bill of Rights, U.S. (2008) The Bill of Rights is made up of the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States. This Bill of Rights guarantees freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom of religion, the right to privacy, the right to due process, amongst others religious freedom is one of the freedoms the American people valuemost. The Constitution gives every individual and every religious group complete freedom of worship. Perhaps one of the most prominent words in the Constitution is "Freedom", and it is these freedoms that sometimes clash with each other. A clear example is how at times faced with Freedom of expression Freedom of the press and the right to privacy.

The First Amendment protects the right toprivacy and the Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures that violate the reasonable expectations of privacy. According To Nimmer (2000) there are four categories of invasion of privacy:

• Intrusion upon physical solitude or private affairs of the applicant
• False light
• Public disclosure of private facts
• Appropriation

Steven's Case

In the case ofSteven that involved the tort to Public disclosure of private facts.
According To Nimmer (2000) Public disclosure of embarrassing private facts, has to do directly with the First Amendment because the defendant commits a crime by publishing real information.

Steven released his personal Indiscretions process as part of a religious character that demanded to make such disclosures, which nobodytold in advance to Steve was that this information would be known by all members of the church. This aspect would have changed the decision to Steven in relation to share his personal Indiscretions. It is common for religious institutions and their leaders to give this type of handling to the revelations of a personal nature that members of the congregation make the leaders of the churches, isalmost a rule that these revelations remain in the strictest confidence, they enjoyed special privileges even the to the light of the law. According To Kerley, Hames, and Sukys (2009) The law protects the confidentiality of the penitent to his confessor. This privilege is given only if the conversations are carried out in confidence. Based on this backgrounds Steve confessed his personal indiscretions,having the confidence that that information would not be widespread. Furthermore, and as a fundamental aspect in the establishment, development and success of a case of invasion of privacy, it can be shown that in the case of Steve that information or material submitted by the plaintiff was and is of a private nature that no is public knowledge, and that did not happen in public, and that is notcontained in any public record.

According to Pember and Colvert (2011) Within the Privacy Law ,Publication is to communicate or disclose information to a third person, and publicity means going even more far, is to have released such information to a large group of people through the use of media such as TV, radio, newspapers, internet. This implies that what is communicated or said is nowpublic knowledge.

The leaders of the church that Steven is going to have , let him know of their intention to make public the private confessions he has done of his actions to set an example. This means that all members of the congregation, neighbors and even his employer will eventually find his personal Indiscretions, which means that the information that is conveyed privately will become ofpublic knowledge, giving Steve legal bases to consider this case as an initial way of invasion of privacy.

According To Arenella (2000) anyone who gives publicity to a matter of private life of another person, is responsible of invasion of privacy. If the matter publicized is of a kind that: (a) would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (b) is not of legitimate concern to the...
tracking img