Replies

OK, here's what I think after a few minutes on Lexis. BTW, I am currently prosecuting a lawsuit, in part for invasion of my privacy, against a California state agency, and (while not a lawyer myself) have some familiarity with the law on privacy.

1. The California constitution is - I think - a little unusual in that it guarantees the right to privacy. It's a fairly broad right the way it is written into the constitution, and the boundaries around what is an invasion haven't been very well established. I think it could be construed to apply in this situation.

2. Why California law? FR's servers are located in Fresno. Regardless of where Buckhead lives, or where the reporter works, I think CA law applies, because the LA Times was rummaging through FR's servers for the information.

3. The normal public figure rules shouldn't apply here. Buckhead is a private individual, who had an absolute expectation of privacy with respect to his posts on FR. In this area of the law, believe it or not, expectation is what counts. If someone reasonably expects their identity to remain confidential, that is what the law looks to.

I'd love to hear from some lawyers; we know they're out there. I'll try to do something more comprehensive on the subject over the weekend. I couldn't find any cases directly on point in a quick search of California law, but there may be some federal or other state law on point.

Assuming a lawsuit was feasible, you can count me in for a contribution.

"I think CA law applies, because the LA Times was rummaging through FR's servers for the information.
"

I was thinking CBS did the probing, found the info on Buckhead and passed it on to LA Times. They have no interest in the truth, but will make an exception to get the man that will go down in history as the man who went to bat for a sitting president in wartime and stopped their fraud and brought down cBS and Dan Rather.

God Bless you Buckhead. America owes you a great debt!

I believe this would be a case where the choice of venue is wide open. Finding out info about someone is no crime. What you do with that info after you get it might be another matter. Each incident of violation into his life would be a potential charge against the actor in whatever location they reside. Difficult to prove intent to harm by the LA Times.

I'm not an attorney, though I've played one on the net from time to time. ;o) This ain't the first time I've seen something like this happen, though it is the first time I've ever seen some entity masquerading as a legitimate news source involve themselves with anything like it.