3 ms·
This is similar to the tort of public disclosure of private facts. Similar, perhaps, but torts entitle someone to sue for damages and this law creates a new cr
by Zak 13y ago
This is similar to the tort of public disclosure of private facts.
Similar, perhaps, but torts entitle someone to sue for damages and this law creates a new crime for which people can be imprisoned. It also removes the opportunity to argue on a case-by-case basis whether the facts disclosed were, in fact a matter of public interest.
If covert films document violations of the law regarding animal cruelty or food safety, those are matters of public interest by default. This law differs from the tort of public disclosure of private facts in that it still applies when those facts are of legitimate public interest. I doubt it will hold up to a serious constitutional challenge for that reason.
- brownbat 13y agoExcellent point. I should have written, "The considerations underlying this law may be similar to a very different common law tort"... which don't help us predict outcomes in individual cases, might just shed some light on how, if it did survive any First Amendment challenge, how that would happen. In practice there are enormous differences. And even the First Amendment challenge would be complicated by this being a criminal statute and not having an out for the public interest. I'm less sure about the effect of criminalizing the collection of information instead of its dissemination. I'm more unsure whether animal cruelty is public interest by default, just don't know the animal rights cases. But, eh, Ninth Circuit, you're probably right, Idaho may have a tough shot.