Invasion of Privacy v. Freedom of Speech

(May 30, 2001) The California Court of Appeal issued its opinion [PDF] in M.G. v. Time Warner, a case involving privacy rights and the California SLAPP statute. This is a case involving old media -- magazines and TV -- not Internet technology; however, the legal issues involved also pertain to Internet media and speakers. The Court held that in this case the claim of the individuals' whose privacy was invaded by the reporting of Time Warner overcomes the news medium's SLAPP motion.

M.G., a minor, et al. v. Time Warner, Appeal No. E027632, an appeal from the Superior Court of San Bernadino County California, Super. Ct. No. SCV 64216, Judge Carl Davis presiding, to the Court of Appeal, State of California, Fourth District, Division Two, Judges Gaut, Ramirez and Ward presiding.

Facts. Time Warner (now AOL Time Warner) published stories in a print publication (Sports Illustrated) and in a TV program about a child molester who coached little league baseball. The stories included a photograph of a team which he had coached. Some of the children in the picture had been molested by him.

Trial Court Proceeding. The plaintiffs, children and normal adult coaches who were captured in the picture, filed a complaint in the Superior Court of San Bernardino County against Time Warner alleging invasion of privacy and other claims. Time Warner filed a motion to strike the complaint, arguing that it violated CCCP § 425.16, the anti SLAPP statute. SLAPP is the acronym for Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation. The trial court denied the motion, and Time Warner appealled.

SLAPP Statute. See, California Code of Civil Procedure, Sections 425.10 - 425.16. Section 425.16(a) provides that "The Legislature finds and declares that there has been a disturbing increase in lawsuits brought primarily to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for the redress of grievances. The Legislature finds and declares that it is in the public interest to encourage continued participation in matters of public significance, and that this participation should not be chilled through abuse of the judicial process."

Appeals Court Holding. The Appeals Court first noted that while the statute may have first been conceived to protect impecunious protesters from wealthy plaintiffs, it has been applied to protect media defendants. The Court then followed a two part analysis. It first analyzed whether the anti SLAPP statute applies in this case. It held that since Time Warner, in publishing and broadcasting on the serious topic of child molestation, exercised its right of free speech concerning an issue of public interest in a public forum, the anti SLAPP statute applies. The Court next analyzed whether the plaintiffs presented a prima facie case. It held that they had presented a prima facie claim that the private fact of their membership on the molester's team was not newsworthy. The Court therefore held that, based on the theory of invasion of privacy for public disclosure of private facts, their cause of action is sufficient to overcome defendants' SLAPP motion. Affirmed.

Lawyers. The law firm of O'Melveney and Myers and Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe represented Time Warner.