Eugene Volokh on the background of a case now pending in the Ninth Circuit:
Unfortunately, for several decades, California courts did indeed take the view that accurately discussing people’s crimes from a decade or more ago could lead to legal liability. Such speech, a discussion in a 1971 California Supreme Court said, serves no “public purpose” and is not “of legitimate public interest”; there is no “reason whatsoever” for it, when (in the court’s view) the plaintiff has been “rehabilitated” and has “paid his debt to society.”
In 2004, the state’s high court recognized that as regards the media and its reporting, this stance had become inconsistent with modern views of the First Amendment. Unfortunately, the court left open the possibility that non-media defendants might still face damage suits for privacy invasion over such disclosures, and exactly that possibility has now eventuated in a case by the name of Readylink Healthcare v. Lynch. (Mar. 15)
Comments are closed.