Legal Brief: Hotjox Magazine
Facts: Mark Studley (Studley), an Olympic swimmer, was featured on the cover of Hotjox magazine, a magazine targeted primarily at gay males. The picture was in the public domain. The magazine cover had the headline "Olympic Hunks Exposed" and said, "12 Sizzling Centerfolds Ready to Score with You," "Holy Speedo! Hot Athletic Buns!" And "Mark Studley, Olympic 2000's Best Body." The only image of Studley inside the magazine was a small fully-dressed quarter-page photo with an athletic profile of him and a quote he had previously given about trying to be a role model for children. The magazine did feature nude photos of male dancers. Studley filed suit against Hotjox alleging false light invasion of privacy. Studley maintained that the cover implied that he had voluntarily posed for the magazine and that this cost him endorsements and resulted in damage to his reputation. Hotjox argued that, as a public figure, Studley had to demonstrate actual malice. In deposition testimony associate editor Lance Ledoux stated that editor Justin Thyme had told them to make the issue sexier, but that he had objected because he believed that the headline would lead people to believe that Studley appeared nude in the magazine. The photo editor stated that it was their policy to specifically state if someone appeared nude in the magazine. The magazine was sold shrink-wrapped, so that a purchaser could not see the contents without buying the magazine.
Issues: Should the court grant summary judgment in favor of Hotjox? Did the magazine present information about or concerning Studley that was presented as factual but that was actually false or created a false impression bout him? Did the information state or imply something highly offensive that would have a tendency to injure Studley's reputation? What is false light invasion of privacy? Did a false light invasion of privacy occur in this...
"This tort is defined as putting a person in a false light before the public... The tort essentially states that a photo or story cannot be used if that photo or story conveys a false impression of someone" (Cooper, 2013). A false light invasion of privacy can be based upon either a positive or a negative falsehood. However, false light cases are judged by criteria established in Time, Inc. v. Hill, which determined that a plaintiff had to establish actual malice in order to win a false light invasion of privacy suit (Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374 (1967)). In Kaelin v. Globe Communications Corp. (9th Cir., 1998) 162 F.3d 1036, Kato Kaelin brought suit against the publisher of the National Examiner for a headline that suggested that he committed the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. In that case, the court found that the headline did not accurately reflect the content of the article that appeared later in the publication (162 F.3d 1037). Furthermore, the headline falsely insinuated that Kaelin committed the murders, and that insinuation was not necessarily remedied by the non-defamatory article that appeared later in the publication. In support of the Court's decision in that case, it cited testimony by one of the journalists that he believed that the headline might appear misleading to people (162 F.3d 1039). "The appropriate summary judgment question is whether a reasonable jury could find, by clear and convincing evidence" that a plaintiff has shown actual malice (162 F.3d 1039). To do that, the Court examined whether the headlines alone were susceptible of a false and defamatory meaning (162 F.3d 1039). Furthermore, these meanings are to be assessed from the standpoint of the average reader, rather than from…
