James 1 Tiffany James Dr.

McConnell Law and Ethics 24 October 2012 False Light v Defamation False light is one of the four categories under privacy law. It protects people from offensive and false facts being stated about them to the public. However, not every state recognizes the false light law and in the ones that do the requirements can very different from one another. In normal circumstances a false light claim requires these four things. The information in dispute must have been published to the public by the defendant, the publication talks directly about the plaintiff, the publication places the plaintiff in a false light that would be extremely offensive to any levelheaded person, and it was the defendants fault that the information got published. Defamation on the other hand is a little bit different. Defamation is under libel law and it is making a false statement about someone that could cause damage to their reputation public. However, just like false light, the requirements for a defamation suit vary depending on what state you are in. But there are four elements to defamation that are broadly used in each state. They are that the statement about the plaintiff must be false; the defaming information must be accessible to someone other than just the plaintiff, if the statement is of public concern than the plaintiff must prove that the defendant was negligent in the case of a private citizen, but the plaintiff must prove actual malice in the case of a public figure or official. And finally the person who was defamed must prove that they

James 2 were damaged by the statement mentally or in career. Is it possible for a defamation case to have traits of false light and if the defendant dies how does that effect the case? There are a few court cases that talk about false light and defamation, but I narrowed it down to one case that I would look at in depth. They are Tory v. Cochran. In the case of Tory v. Cochran, Johnnie Cochran sued Ulysses Tory, his former client for making defaming statements about him. Tory had tried to force Cochran to pay him money in exchange for getting rid of all defamatory information and not stating anything else defamatory about Cochran. But Cochran refused to pay Tory and instead took him to court. After receiving all of the evidence the state trial court decided that Tory had engaged in an unlawful defamatory activity. For example, Tory claimed that Cochran owed him money which was untrue. Claims like this could cause harm Cochrans good name because it could make it seem as though he were an untrustworthy man who didnt pay people back and didnt keep his promises. Tory also complained to the local bar associate about Cochran which could have ruined his reputation in his field of work. Tory also wrote threatening letters demanding 10 million dollars, picketed Cochrans office with signs containing various insults and obscenities, and had a group of associates hound him with the same insults. All of these things could have a negative impact on his image. These things can obviously be considered defamation of character and the court agreed and told Tory to never talk about Cochran again. It is also plausible that that Cochran could have sued for false light because the information was identified him, it was seen by a wide public, it was obviously false, but still made Cochran look bad, and the defendant was at fault. All of the criteria for false light fit. Tory then tried to appeal stating that it violated his First amendment rights, however he was denied. The Supreme Court then took on the case.

James 3 However, right after the oral arguments and before the case could really get started Cochran passed away. The court then raised the question of whether or not a judge's order that someone stop making defaming statements about a public figure, even after that figure's death, violate the First Amendment right to free speech ? (TORY v. COCHRAN). Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court that resulted in a 7 to 2 vote in favor of Tory. This came about because Cochran was no longer alive which diminished the reason for the judges order and made the order seem broad which would affect more than just Tory. False light is not easy to prove and not usually thought about, but there are cases out there that could be considered false light cases. However, we do have to realize that not all states recognize false light which is most likely why cases that could potentially be considered false light end up be defamation cases. I believe that there is a thin line between false light and defamation, but not everyone can see it. And because there requirements are so close one can be mistaken for the other. Along with that I have learned that if a person dies most likely the ruling made during their case will be over turned because it no longer affects anyone.

James 4 Works Cited "TORY v. COCHRAN." Google Scholar. Supreme Court of United States.. Web. 04 Nov 2012. TORY v. COCHRAN. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 03 November 2012. TORY v. COCHRAN. Legal Information Institute. Cornell University Law School. Web. 04 November 2012.