As one of the most controversial topics in law and media today, court rulings have pointed their finger in one direction and that has been the path ever since. Many journalists and researches believe that rape-victim identity and privacy is an ethical issue that should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

The United States Supreme Court mostly settled the legal issues of privacy in two decisions. The first requiring each state to display enough compelling interest to take precedence over the First Amendment protection given to journalists for the publication of truthful information. The Court has made it nearly impossible for rape victims to win privacy suits against media that identifies victims. However, this has not stopped rape victims from filling privacy suits

The U.S. Constitution does not mention privacy further then having to obtain a warrant to enter some ones home. Even though it is not mentioned, the ‘Right to Privacy’ is understood by most people, but what some people may not know there are four torts included in privacy: appropriation, intrusion, false light and private facts. All of these torts are well defined with specific boundaries, except for private facts. It is vague, barely punished and is usually the tort victims use to file suits under. “The right to privacy is just a right, a right based not on constitutional guarantees,”(Gates Jr. 2000). Although the ‘right to privacy’ has gained significant public support and strength, the idea of public interest continually steps in the way. The public is interested in matters of social issues such as: crime, drug use and political candidates. News of social issues or stories about these issues can teach and inform the American public.

After the State v. Evjue (33 N.W.2d 305 Wis. 1948) case victims changed the focus of the suits. They began to sue for invasion of privacy, and claimed that the publication of their names caused them humiliation and harassment. This in turn forced the courts to make yet another landmark decision on whether to prohibit or punish news organizations for publishing truthful information that may cause harm to the victim. In the case of Nappier v. Jefferson Standard Life Insurance Co. (322 F.2d 502 4th Cir. 1963), two women were raped while in their hotel. The women were both dental hygienist and traveled around performing puppet shows with a puppet named “Little Jack” to teach children about dental hygiene. After the crime, the rapist stole the station wagon that had the Little Jack logo on it. The police found the truck the next day and television crews took pictures of the station wagon and broadcasted the story of the rape that evening. The women sued the television station, stating it violated the South Carolina’s law prohibiting the broadcast or publication of rape victims’ names. The U.S. District Court dismissed the suit, claiming the women had not truly been named. The Court of Appeals overturned the decision, saying that the word “name” also means “identity” and the women could be identified by the television station when they showed the pictures of the station wagon with the logo on it. The Court also said that the women could sue under statutory or common law because common law makes matters of public interest and public records privileged. Yet, South Carolina’s statute removes that privilege in cases that involve rape victim identification. This ruling came at a time when states were starting to pay attention to the right of privacy. It gave some support to the idea that the First Amendment that protects things of social value, but when there is no value First Amendment rights can be limited.

In conclusion rape victim’s suits for privacy force the court in to balancing individual rights against the overall good. The overall good will most likely win every time, yet courts still judge cases on individual basis. Judges are considerate of victims’ traumatic experiences and acknowledge their desire for privacy, but conclude that if they punish just one news media for publishing a rape victim’s name, then reporters may withhold using names in the future.

1 a : the general welfare and rights of the public that are to be recognized, protected, and advanced

Some topics in this essay:
Supreme Court, Definitions Invasion, South Carolina, , Martin Cohn, South Carolina’s, Court Appeals, Cynthia Cohn’s, Insurance Co, Robert Parker, supreme court, rape victims, television station, privacy suits, invasion privacy, victim’s name, capitol times, victims’ names, truthful information, common law, florida supreme court, publication truthful information, pictures station wagon, 33 nw2d 305, printing victim’s name,