|
Because the question is not about general law principles. It is testing to see if you know the tort of public disclosure of private facts and if you know about the right of publicity. Importantly, let me be more clear: * The definition of "newsworthy" in this case is a term of art, not a matter of "it is not newsworthy in the same way that stories about the hulk are not newsworthy." Newsworthy, in this instance, does not mean meritorious as a subject of news, but merely of public interest. In this case, yes, it is newsworthy. This is the way courts use this word in this context. * Case law is very, very resoundingly settled on this matter. Activity you conduct in public can be recorded and broadcast for a huge variety of purposes - end of story. The only really restricted purposes, in fact, are those that imply sponsorship or endorsement, or are injurious as a matter of libel - meaning there is a material falsehood. This question is structured, specifically, to see if the reader knows about the laws of libel and publicity - truth is a defense to libel (this is a true recount of facts occurring in the broadcast of the footage) and newsworthiness is an exception to violation of rights of publicity (which are typically only violated when implying sponsorship or endorsement). The reason the questions don't make sense, then, is for the very reason that a lot of people don't respect what lawyers do (note: I am in now way implying you do not - you have put time and thought into your response and I found it very stimulating! I am talking in general) - because though we use english as the language of practice it does not mean we use the commonly used english definitions of those words in the legal context. Here, in this context, without knowing a fair amount of law, you wouldn't know that there were specific privacy rights being dealt with and that "newsworthy" is a term of art. In other words, the question being asked is absolutely no less technical than the question on mortgages - except that mortgages are so esoteric no one accidentally mistakes understanding mortgages for the mere fact that they are explained in english words. If I could go back in time, I'd write laws in camelcaps to make it clear that the legal definition of newsWorthy is different than the lay meaning of newsworthy. |
How would one's answer change if they had never heard of these concepts? For this question, these topics only come up to be ruled out. I can see these things tripping someone up if they know enough about the concepts to involve them, but not enough to see that they don't apply, and perhaps this is the only point.
> not mean we use the commonly used english definitions of those words in the legal context
IMHO "newsworthy" as a term of legal art doesn't seem far off from "newsworthy" in the common vernacular, just a bit more formalized and specific. I think the problems arise when someone attempts to stretch the lay meaning of the word to justify something (say equating newsworthy with gossip-worthy).
On the other hand (and this is opening up a whole nother can of worms), I would say that there is merit to idea that words in laws should be interpretable as plain English instead of being defined arbitrarily by previous cases. The law should be written such that the average person can read and understand it themselves with a modicum of effort - being forced to hire a professional and expend considerable resources to answer fundamental questions about what one is permitted to do is itself a violation of equal protection and an erosion of the very idea of the rule of law.