4 ms·
Yes, it may be illegal, in civil court. It's the tort of "public disclosure of private facts". Under California law, the public disclosure of private facts is d
by joshuaheard 5y ago
Yes, it may be illegal, in civil court. It's the tort of "public disclosure of private facts". Under California law, the public disclosure of private facts is defined as (1) a public disclosure of (2) private facts about an individual (3) that would offend the average person, that (4) was not of legitimate public concern; and (5) where defendant published private facts with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity.
You could sue for compensatory damages: Loss of reputation, shame and hurt feelings, damage to the plaintiff’s trade or occupation, or loss of business income resulting from the disclosure.
(Link to source: https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/personal-injury/harm-to-reputation/public-disclosure-of-private-facts/ https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/personal-injury/harm-to-reputat...)
- avalys 5y ago1) Maybe this is of legitimate public concern? 2) The last point - which must be present, thanks to the word “and” - seems to imply that publishing facts you have good reason to believe are true would be excluded.
- joshuaheard 5y agoI'm not making any conclusions, only that a prima facie case can be made. As the article rightly pointed out, being gay does not mean you are an abusive pedophile. So, I don't see the public concern, more like a private matter for the church. The last clause pertains to belief of offensiveness. More detail is in the link.
- x0x0 5y agoA senior policy maker in one of the most homophobic organizations in the world.
- dylan604 5y agoThey did approach a Catholic organization about having this kind of information: In his CNA article, Bermudez wrote that the group that approached him had wanted “to provide this information privately to Church officials in the hopes that they would discipline or remove those found to be using these technologies to violate their clerical vows and possibly bring scandal to the Church.” in a tweet saying that he and his co-author had weighed the question of individual privacy and decided that Burrill’s Grindr use was a matter of public interest because he was a “high-ranking public figure who was responsible in a direct way for the development and oversight of policies addressing clerical accountability with regard to the Church’s approach to sexual morality.” There's the answer to your public concern from their view point. Whether you agree with it or not, that is their stance.
- ashtonkem 5y agoOne’s sexual orientation is absolutely not a public concern.
- _-david-_ 5y agoThe sexual orientation is not the issue here. Just being gay is not a sin according to the Catholic Church. He is a Catholic priest and was having gay sex, which is a sin. That is a public concern (at least to the Catholic public).
- ashtonkem 5y agoThat does not justify an invasion of privacy, as a general rule. The state should not back off on individual rights because the church cares about something. Furthermore, these exceptions to privacy are very rarely limited to use against the rich and powerful. Today we’re excusing Grindr violating the privacy of the priest, tomorrow we find out that this loophole has been expanded to the poor and powerless. Rights have to be extended to those you find distasteful, otherwise they don’t exist at all.
- _-david-_ 5y agoI never said his sexual orientation or actions justify an invasion of privacy. I am not sure where you came to the conclusion I was stating anything like that. All I was trying to convey was this had nothing to do with his sexual orientation like you said. His actions on the otherhand are of public concern for Catholics.
- ashtonkem 5y ago> I never said his sexual orientation or actions justify an invasion of privacy. I am not sure where you came to the conclusion I was stating anything like that. > That is a public concern (at least to the Catholic public). The reason why I came to that conclusion is because you said it clearly.
- spoonjim 5y agoSo if they were true facts then there would not be a tort?
- tantalor 5y agoWhat's an "average person"? The dating app example probably fails count 3, since one's dating life is not offensive to the average person. For grindr, it might be offensive to some minority of people.
- kelnos 5y agoI think the test here is, "would an average person find offensive the idea of someone selling/disclosing their real-time location history without their knowledge?" For which I would hope the answer is "yes".