Abstract
In Pring v. Penthouse International, Ltd., the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals struck an unusual balance between the first amendment right of free press and an individual's interest in reputation and right to privacy. The court upheld a publisher's right to print articles about living people that include fictional accounts that would be damaging to reputation, or would be an invasion of privacy, if presented as true. The court held that once fiction is combined with fact, the statement can no longer "reasonably be understood as describing actual facts" and therefore is no longer protected by the first amendment. That analysis, however, pigeonholes "faction" into preexisting categories that were designed for other types of expression without determining whether the policy considerations for which the categories were designed are still satisfied. In so doing, the court failed to analyze whether a combination of fact and fiction can cause damages to a person's reputation or privacy that should be protected by the first amendment. The court also failed to realize that there is no "fact" requirement for false light invasion of privacy.
Recommended Citation
Ohlsen, Patricia A.
(1984)
"Fictionalized Publications: When Should
Defamation and Privacy Be a Bar9,"
Utah Law Review: Vol. 1984:
No.
2, Article 7.
Available at:
https://dc.law.utah.edu/ulr/vol1984/iss2/7