5. Are truth and lack of
malice adequate defenses for invading someone's privacy, according to Warren
and Brandeis? What is their reasoning? Do you agree with their
position? Why or why not
Warren and
Brandeis said “The truth of the matter
published does not afford a defence. Obviously this branch of the law should
have no concern with the truth or falsehood of the matters published.” They
state that slander and defamation of character should in fact be protected.
That the way it should be protected is to respect someone’s privacy and not
make any matters public without the consent of the subject. That it is an
invasion of privacy regardless of if it is true or false. That it doesn’t matter
if in fact that there is truth or a wrong account of someone’s private life, it
should not be made public for any reason. The branch of law that covers these
privacy issues should consider the truth or falsehood of the data as irrelevant
and protect the individual regardless. I agree with this position. It doesn’t matter
if you are spreading false rumors or uncovering truths about an individual or a
group, it should be considered an invasion of privacy, and could also be
considered slander if it meets the criteria defined in our laws. I do however make
a concession in the event of a crime being unveiled. In that situation the
source should have to be public and face the individual and defend his claims
in a court of law. If in fact that individual made a false claim of a crime
being committed he or she should be held liable in a court of law.
In regards to privacy Warren and Brandeis state “The
absence of "malice" in the publisher does not afford a defense.
Personal ill-will is not an ingredient of the offence, any more than in an
ordinary case of trespass to person or to property. Such malice is never
necessary to be shown in an action for libel or slander at common law, except
in rebuttal of some defense, e.g., that the occasion rendered the communication
privileged, or, under the statutes in this State and elsewhere, that the
statement complained of was true.” They argue that the invasion of privacy is
an invasion of privacy regardless of intent. There should be protection against
such acts in a complete and equal manner. That if it wasn’t considered an
offense it would damage the integrity of the entire legal system in regards to
all kinds of statutory violations, It is a wrong committed no matter what was
intended and should be dealt with in a manner befitting the severity of the
offense. I partially agree with their
statement. I am going to generalize but it is germane to this topic. If someone
commits a crime by accident and it causes damages or harm to anyone else
financially, physically, mentally etc. they should have to answer for their
actions. However I personally believe there is a big difference between someone
making a mistake and a person who intentionally causes harm. My argument is
both parties should definitely be accountable for their actions, but if it can
be proven to intentional that party should have a harsher penalty then the
person who it was an honest mistake. Other factors withstanding such as
reputation or record of individuals involved, witnesses etc. But I digress some
as the answer to the question is it intentions are in fact not a defense to
justify the action. They can be taken into consideration in special
circumstances but they don’t make it right or acceptable.
PZB
No comments:
Post a Comment