By Howard Fischer | Capitol Media Services/Arizona Daily Star
A case headed for the Arizona Supreme Court could determine when anyone can — and cannot — immediately broadcast or post what they witness on the Internet without fear of being sued.
On the surface, the case involves a decision by Fox News to show a live 80-mile car chase in 2012 that ended with the man getting out of his vehicle and fatally shooting himself on live TV. On Tuesday, the state Court of Appeals concluded the First Amendment rights of the network to show news as it unfolds — including the suicide — trumped any emotional harm to the man’s children who found the video later on YouTube.
Comments by Rose Law Group Cyber Attorney Sam Doncaster:
The [lower] courts made the correct the decision, at least under current law. It seems to me that there are three separate issues at play here.
“There is a First Amendment right to free speech. Importantly, this right is what stands between a speaker and the government. It stops the government from enacting laws to restrain speech. The law of free speech is well developed. It is unlikely that we will see courts restricting what a news organization can and cannot show. But your right to free speech does not necessarily protect you against a civil action for the consequences of your speech.
“Second, there is a privacy right. Traditionally, this right is pretty limited in public. If you go outside where everyone can see you, your expectation of privacy is significantly diminished. The spread of cell-phone cameras provides some reason to rethink this analysis. There is a difference between being seen by other people in public and being recorded by them for broadcast. But, absent public demand, I doubt the law on privacy is going to change much.
“Finally, there is a legal entitlement to seek some redress against people who have wronged you. I think it is pretty clear that Fox News did not intend to inflict emotional distress when it broadcast this suicide. Fox News probably didn’t care. While there are some states that recognize a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress, I believe that the majority do not. There generally no right to be free from distress and no duty to actively avoid distressing others.
“The real source of distress here is the suicide, not the news coverage.”
Related: Arizona to pay $500,000 in legal fees for lost cases/Arizona Daily Sun
