Shay Mohajer
WRTC 301
Karen McDonnell
02/17/2014
Case Study #1
Shulman v. Group W. Productions, Inc., 18 Cal.4th 200, 955 P.2d 469 (1998)
Issue: Does the First Amendment of the United States Constitution’s freedom of press
precede personal freedom of privacy?
Facts: In 1990, Ruth and Wayne Shulman, along with two additional family members,
were in a car accident when their vehicle flew off Interstate 10 in Riverside County,
California. Ruth and Wayne Shulman were injured in this accident that was broadcasted
on television. The plaintiffs argued that their privacy was stripped from them without
their consent when footage from the site of the accident was aired.
Laura Carnahan, the nurse on scene, wore a wireless microphone while aiding the
plaintiffs. Joel Cooke, a video operator hired by Group W. Productions, recorded the
incident. Carnahan’s microphone picked up conversations that she had with the Shulmans
and other rescue workers. A nine-minute clip of the scene was aired on September 29,
1990 during a broadcast called On Scene: Emergency Response. This scene features Ruth
Shulman several times and includes dialogue between her and Carnahan. Ruth Shulman
is heard making comments such as “I just want to die. I don’t want to go through this”
(Justia). After seeing her accident on television from her hospital room, Ruth stated, “I
was not at my best in what I was thinking and what I was saying and what was being
shown, and it's not for the public to see this trauma that I was going through" (Justia).
Wayne Shulman’s voice is not heard, but he is seen in the video clip.
Ruth and Wayne Shulman sued the producers of On Scene: Emergency Response.
Charges against them included two counts of invasion of privacy: one count when the
accident was unlawfully intruded upon and recorded and another when it was broadcasted
on television. The defendants argued that they had a right to record and broadcast the
accident because of the First Amendment’s Free Press clause. They believe that the
accident included newsworthy content.
Holding: The First Amendment protects the defendant’s right to public disclosure of this
otherwise private accident. It was of public concern, and was thus newsworthy.
Carl H. Hamberger & a. v. Clifford C. Eastman, 106 N.H. 107 (1964)
Issue: Does the state of New Hampshire recognize a right to privacy?
Facts: Carl Hamberger and his wife were Clifford Eastman’s tenants. Eastman inserted a
listening and recording device in the tenant’s room without their knowledge or consent.
Eastman was able to listen to the plaintiffs’ conversations, but there is no evidence that he
recorded or distributed any of the plaintiffs’ private dialogue. The Supreme Court of New
Hampshire did not have any precedent off which to base their decision, as this bedroombugging incident was the first that they had seen. The petitioners argue that precedent is
not necessary, as any sensible human being can recognize that invasion of privacy
occurred in this case.
Four distinct kinds of invasion of privacy were considered in this case: (1) invasion of
plaintiff’s physical and mental solitude or seclusion; (2) public disclosure of private
affairs; (3) publicity that compromises the plaintiff’s reputation in the public sphere; (4)
giving away the plaintiff’s name or likeness in order to benefit the defendant. Only the
first tort applied to this case.
The first tort does not exclude non-physical invasion of privacy. Wire-bugging the
plaintiffs’ private conversations intrudes upon their mental seclusion. The defendant
argued that there was no evidence that anyone listened to or recorded the happenings of
the plaintiffs’ private quarters. Furthermore, he claims that because no one published or
distributed the Hambergers’ private affairs, this is not a case of invasion of privacy. The
prosecution contended that the first tort does not specify whether or not evidence of
listening or recording is needed or that publication must occur in order to be found guilty
of the first tort.
Holding: Electronic eavesdropping on a married couple who did not provide reason to
warrant the defendant’s invasion upon their privacy is a criminal offense. Regardless of
whether or not the private affairs of the Hamberger couple were publicized, their mental
comfort was invaded. The state of New Hampshire recognized the landlord’s use of
listening and recording devices to hear the couple’s conversations was a criminal act,
regardless of whether or not he intended or proceeded to publicize the conversations. The
first tort of the invasion of privacy guidelines proves the defendant’s guilt.
The State of New Jersey v. Dharun Ravi, 11-04-00596 (2012)
Issue: Does the New Jersey Invasion of Privacy statute make it illegal for college
students to record their roommates’ personal affairs in their shared bedroom and view
them without their roommates’ consent?
Facts: Clementi asked Ravi if he could use their room for three hours on September 19,
2010. Ravi secretly turned on his laptop webcam before leaving their room and used his
friend Molly Wei’s computer to view Clementi and his male visitor’s private encounter.
According to witnesses, Ravi wanted to confirm suspicions that Clementi was gay. Ravi
and Wei saw Clementi and his visitor kissing each other, and Ravi wrote on his Twitter
account that "Roommate asked for the room till midnight. I went into molly's room and
turned on my webcam. I saw him making out with a dude. Yay" (Parker). Clementi was
one of Ravi’s Twitter followers, and he saw this tweet the next day. At around 4 a.m. on
September 21, 2010, Clementi requested a room change because of this invasion of
privacy incident.
On September 21, 2010 at 6:39 p.m. Ravi sent another Twitter message to his followers.
This one said "Anyone with iChat, I dare you to video chat me between the hours of 9:30
and 12. Yes, it's happening again” (Parker). This second incident did not end up
happening because Clementi unplugged Ravi’s laptop from its power source. Ravi was
charged with 4th degree invasion of privacy for this second attempt, as he very obviously
was attempting to observe Clementi engaging in sexual conduct once more.
This case generated much of its publicity after Tyler Clementi’s suicide on September 22,
2010. Ravi’s invasion of Clementi’s privacy did not only infringe on his right to privacy,
but also his right to life.
Holding: It is an invasion of privacy to view and publicize somebody else’s personal
sexual conducts without their consent. Ravi was found guilty of 15 counts of crimes,
including 3rd and 4th degree invasion of privacy, against Clementi after intentionally
invading Clementi’s privacy.
Follow Up
Invasion of privacy is an ethical dilemma that can seriously injure those involved. A right
to privacy is also a right to mental stability and personal comfort. What differentiates a
right to one’s personal privacy and the right for the public to become aware of private
facts?
In the 1998 Shulman case, the right to privacy was questioned when the petitioners felt
their personal accident was unlawfully recorded and broadcasted on local television
networks. Because the First Amendment grants the freedom of press, the Shulmans lost
their privacy to their newsworthy accident. In the 1964 Hamberger case, a married
couple sued their landlord Clifford Eastman for invading their privacy when setting up
listening and recording devices in their personal quarters. Unlike the Shulman case, this
invasion of privacy was strictly a private, non-newsworthy matter. The couple were not
accused of discussing any information that the public ought to be aware of, and they
consequently won their case regarding invasion of privacy. Nearly half a century later,
Dharun Ravi intruded on his roommate Tyler Clementi’s privacy when he set up
listening, viewing, and recording devices to view Clementi’s personal affairs. Ravi, like
Eastman, was found guilty of invading privacy.
The Shulman case was an exception to an otherwise common opinion and law that
protects individuals’ rights to privacy. Although the Shulman family believed that they
had a right to privacy, the court was able to cite the First Amendment as a hinderance to
their personal accident. Despite Ruth Shulman’s belief that she was entitled to privacy
during her accident, she found out that her privacy could legally be compromised for the
greater public interest. I personally think that the courts were not fair in deciding this
case. Although the accident itself was newsworthy, the extent of the broadcast felt very
invasive.
Ruth Shulman was unaware of the fact that she was being recorded when she stated
personal thoughts to the nurse that was on the scene of the accident. She did not sign any
waivers or release forms that I feel should have been a requirement for the news station to
broadcast her accident. What differentiates “newsworthy” information from nonnewsworthy information? Although I believe that the accident should have aired on
television, I don’t think that it was necessary to disclose the extent of personal
information that the production company aired. I think that there should be guidelines as
to which sorts of information are indisputably newsworthy and which are not.
The 1998 Hamberger case was very clearly a matter of personal invasion of privacy. This
case differed greatly from the Shulman case. Although both cases concerned invasion of
privacy, there is no room for an argument to be made concerning the newsworthiness of
the Hamberger couple’s personal affairs. The couple were spied on and were thus
stripped of the mental comfort of renting their quarters. This case did not rely on
precedent, but had a very logical outcome: it is simply not right to bug a tenant’s personal
room in order to eavesdrop on private conversations.
Dharun Ravi’s case is the one that I knew I wanted to research when starting this case
study. I was appalled when I first read about the case, as I could not imagine the
humiliation that would arise due to the publicization or intrusion of personal sexual
conduct. It is comforting to know that people cannot get away with such crimes, but very
disturbing to realize the injury of such crimes. Tyler Clementi’s suicide was a direct
result of his roommate’s exploitation of Clementi’s private engagements.
My concern with Ravi’s case lies in his sentencing. He was sentenced to 30 days in
prison, and was released after serving 20 days. In addition to his prison sentence, he was
sentenced to 3 years probation, 300 hours of community service, a $10,000 fine, and
counseling on cyberbullying and alternate lifestyles (Live). Although I do not think that
this could be classified as homicide, the implications of Ravi’s actions did cause
Clementi’s death. Ravi’s punishment did not seem severe enough for the crime that he
committed when he invaded Clementi’s privacy.
The Shulmans, Hambergers, and Tyler Clementi felt injusticed when their privacy was
taken from them. In the case concerning the Shulmans, public disclosure of private events
was legitimized and rationalized based on a Constitutional Amendment. In the
Hambergers’ and Clementi’s cases, invasion of privacy was unwarranted and unjustified.
Invasion of privacy is highly regarded in our court system, but many factors influence the
recognition of what is truly considered private information. One exception to privacy, as
the Shulman family learned, is the right to disclose private information for public
concerns.
Links:
http://law.justia.com/cases/california/cal4th/18/200.html (Shulman)
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15381720441492160435&hl=en&as_sdt=6
&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr (Hamberger)
http://dng.northjersey.com/media_server/tr/2012/05/10ravi/indictment.PDF%2011-0400596 (Ravi)