Communication Law Evans Case

Robert Evans is a wrestling coach at Graceland University suing a reporter from the Ames Tribune named James Olson. Olson published articles calling Evans a hick, a liar, a neo-Nazi, morally unfit to coach and published a photograph claiming it as proof that Evans was unfaithful to his wife. Olson also took a quote from Evans out of context and published it to prove that Evans would not be fit to coach at Iowa State University. Evans admits that he did say what was quoted even though it was out of context, he did attend meetings of a branch of the Aryan brotherhood and he did spend the weekend in a hotel room with a woman who was not his wife. One big issue that Evans has on his side is the photo. The photographer was on a public sidewalk taking pictures into a hotel room window. This violates Evans privacy. Renters of a hotel room are allowed a reasonable expectation of privacy, even though it is publicly accessible. In the 1999 court case Sanders v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., the Supreme Court of California ruled that an invasion of privacy includes an intrusion into a private place and in a manner that is considered offensive to an average person (Bloomberg, 1999). In the Sanders case the court sided with the plaintiff who was an office employee whose conversation was secretly recorded. The expectation of privacy does not need to be one of total and complete privacy. It also varies in respect to the identity of the supposed intruder and the person who has their privacy invaded. In this case one could argue that since Evans is in a hotel room he ought to be granted the privacy he would expect. It also raises the point that Evans is a public figure who is a prominent contender for a job that is of public interest. In Iowa a photo may be published if it is considered to be of public interest. The 1956 Iowa Supreme Court case Bremmer v. Journal-Tribune Publishing Co., decided this. In the Bremmer case a disturbing photo of a mutilated and decomposed boys body was published in a newspaper and the parents argued that it was an invasion of their privacy

and caused them severe emotional turmoil (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1956). The court disagreed, stating that the boys disappearance had been of public interest so his body being found was also public interest. In Evans case a wrestling coach at one of the biggest and most prominent public universities in Iowa is definitely going to be of public interest. The 1940 Circuit Court of Appeals case Sidis v. F-R Publishing Corporation set up that a public figures privacy is limited when Sidis sued a publishing corporation claiming their biographical sketch and later references to him violated his privacy (Circuit Court of Appeals, 1940). Since he had been a public figure earlier in his life his biography was considered to be of the public interest. One could argue that since Evans is a public figure and doing something potentially morally offensive then Olson had the right to publish the photo. It also helps that the photographer was on a public sidewalk and did not do any trespassing to get the photo. Another claim that could be made from Evans side is that Olsons claims of him being a neoNazi were done with disregard to the truth. This could be seen as actual malice. The 1964 Alabama case New York Times v. Sullivan set up what actual malice is. The Alabama Supreme Court decided that actual malice was information published with the knowledge that it wasnt true or that it was done with reckless disregard of the truth (Alabama Supreme Court, 1964). In the 1987 case Hustler Magazine v Falwell, heard by the Rehnquist Court, a public figure sued and won against Hustler magazine. The magazine published an ad campaign claiming that Falwell, who was a minister and political leader, had had a drunken sexual encounter with his own mother. Falwell claimed that the magazine intentionally published this material with the intent to inflict emotional damage and he won (Rehnquist Court, 1987). There is also the case of Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton that also dealt with actual malice. In 1989 the US Supreme Court heard a case where Connaughton was accused by a newspaper of bribing grand jury witnesses. Connaughton provided proof that he did not but that part didnt get published so that court ruled in his favor stating that the newspaper acted with actual malice (US Supreme Court, 1989). Evans was not a neo-Nazi. He claimed he attended only a few meetings of a group called The Band. Just because the accusations may be partially true doesnt mean its legal to publish them,

especially in Iowa. In 2007 the Iowa Supreme Court heard the case Stevens v. Iowa Newspapers, Inc., in which statements published about Stevens were true but were also consider defamatory. The court recognized this as defamation by implication when they ruled in favor of Stevens on one of his three counts (Iowa Supreme Court, 2007). Evans could argue that Olsons accusations could be defamatory by implication, since they seem to have been based on truth but are still meant to harm his reputation. Olsons comments could also be considered libel per se. Libel per se was defined in the 1915 case of O'Connell v. Press Publishing Co. In the OConnell case libel per se was defined as language so injurious to the person that the court could presume, didnt need actual proof, that the persons reputation or their credit had been damaged by the statements (Fordham Law Review, 1962). Being publicly called a liar, a neo-Nazi and morally unfit for a leadership role could certainly harm an individuals reputation. From Olsons point of view the information, could be considered a matter of public interest. If Evans got the job he was a candidate for then the public would want to know if he was fit to be coaching young men and for some citizens their own children. Having a dark secret in his past could be considered something the public deserves to know. His tenuous connection to a branch of the Aryan Brotherhood could be seen as a safety concern. The Aryan Brotherhood isnt exactly known for its peacefulness. In 2012 the US District Court in the Southern District of Texas indicted 34 members of the Texas Aryan Brotherhood for racketeering. They were also charged with involvement of three murders, attempted murder, kidnapping and assault (Department of Justice, 2012). They wont stand trial until this May. Even though Evans claims hes not a full-fledged member and only went to a few of their meetings this information could be considered something of great public interest. People are going to want to know as who exactly is coaching their kids and the athletes they support or watch. Olsons quoting Evans about wanting to advance his own interests could also be seen as actual malice since it was taken out of context. This could be seen as being done with the sole purpose of making Evans look selfish and would support Olsons claim of Evans being morally unfit for coaching. In

2013 a court case was filed with the Washingtons US District Court involved something being taken out of context. In Shirley Sherrod v Andrew Breitbart an employee of the Agriculture Department was forced to resign after Breitbart published a video that made it appear as though she had made racists statements during a speech. What really happened was that Breitbart had edited the video to only contain certain clips, it was later revealed that Sherrod had actual been talking about her rejection of racism and stereotypes. The lawsuit is still being heard since Breitbart died before it could be settled, but Sherrod was given an official apology and was given a new position with the USDA (Washington District Court, 2013). In Evans case Olson took only the part of the quote that would be the most damaging to Evans and printed that. Since it was out of context that also makes it not a matter of public interest, if it had been the whole quote then it could have been considered public interest. It was done with the intention to harm Evans image and his reputation. One of the main arguments Olson has on his side is that Evans is a public figure and if he has a suspicious past, and may be doing immoral things then the public has a right to know. Iowa has laws set up in favor of public interest, and since Evans is a public figure his privacy is a bit less protected than private citizens. Another argument for Olson is that his statements are mostly based on facts. Even though Evans isnt a neo-Nazi per se, he did have a brief affiliation with a white supremacy group. On Evans side a hotel room is considered private and there shouldnt have been photos taken of him and he was quoted out of context. Evans could argue that even though some of Olsons claims were based on fact they were done with the direct intention of harming his reputation or defamation by implication.

Bibliography Bloomberg Law. (1999). Sanders v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. Retrieved from [http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/torts/torts-keyed-to-prosser/privacy-torts-keyed-to-prossertorts-law/sanders-v-american-broadcasting-companies-inc-et-al/]. Supreme Court of Iowa. (1956). Bremmer v. Journal-Tribune Publishing Co. Retrieved from [http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8279753192140193289&q=Bremmer+v.+JournalTribune+Publishing+Co.&hl=en&as_sdt=6,26&as_vis=1] Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. (1940). Sidis v. F-R Publishing Corporation. Retrieved from [http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14505170794897587048&q=Sidis+v.+FR+Pub.+Corp&hl=en&as_sdt=6,26&as_vis=1]. Alabama Supreme Court. (1964).New York Times v. Sullivan. Retrieved from [http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1963/1963_39]. Rehnquist Court. (1987). Hustler Magazine v. Falwell. Retrieved from [http://www.oyez.org/cases/19801989/1987/1987_86_1278]. Washington District Court. (2013). Shirley Sherrod v. Andrew Breitbart. Retrieved from [http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/10/shirley-sherrod-seeks-breitbarts-widow-assubstitute-174412.html]. Department of Justice. (2012). Office of Public Affairs Release. Retrieved from [http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/November/12-crm-1341.html]. Iowa Supreme Court. (2007). Stevens v. Iowa Newspapers, Inc. Retrieved from [Prosser & Keeton on the Law of Torts sectionsection 116 and 117].

US Supreme Court. (1989). Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton. Retrieved from [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=491&invol=657]. Fordham Law Review. (1962). O'Connell v. Press Publishing Co. Retrieved from [http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1720&context=flr].