Do Famous People Have the Same Expectation of Privacy?

Up until now, the Supreme Court of the United States has said that they don’t. But that may all change with the new conservative court. That is why I ask that now.

I have to tell you all, I was racking my brain trying to find a cite for this. Famous figures don’t have the same expectation of privacy, according to the SCOTUS to-date. I wasn’t sure how to parse it though. I just remembered the legal phrase ‘absence of malice’. But the only that connected me to was the 1981 film. So if anyone can find a cite, please post it.

But anyways, public figures and (the same) expectations of privacy. Do they have have it? Should they?

Thank you in advance for your kindly replies :slight_smile: .

What your thinking of is a pair of Supreme Court decisions: New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) and Curtis Publishing v. Butts (1967).

In Sullivan, the Court found that false and defamatory statements about an elected official were not - by themselves - libelous, unless they had been made with actual malice. That is, “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” Butts extended the ruling to all “public figures.”

Famous people can still sue for libel. But they have the burden of proving that the news outlet not only A) was wrong and B) the person suffered damages from the error, but also C) the news organization was either deliberate in its error or recklessly failed to verify the story.

Are you thinking of the old Barbra Streisand case from about 20 years ago?

That sounds like substantially everything to have left Trump’s face or fingers for the last 6 years.

Seems like ‘fame’ and ‘privacy’ are in opposition.

It’s a matter of take your pick.

I for one do think that Famous people do have some right of privacy, whether paparazzi camped on lawn, or harassing them at meal, going through their garbage, etc