Supreme Court Overturns False Light Case

Dec. 5, 2008

I came across this case which involves a Florida Supreme Court ruling that recently helped expand the protection of the First Amendment for churches, nonprofit groups, individuals and the media after failing to recognize false light invasion of privacy. I thought this was timely for our class in that we discussed nonprofit groups and media last night (during Melissa Joy's presentation).

In the 5-0 ruling of the Supreme Court case between Jews for Jesus and Edith Rapp, the Court overturned the previous decision of a lower appellate court and referred the case back to an appeals court. Barry Silver, Edith Rapp's attorney, was pleased with the court's decision to send the case back to a lower court.

"I'm very happy with the Supreme Court's decision," Silver said.

He said his goal is to seek a remedy for people like Rapp.

The case began in 2002, after Rapp, a Jewish woman from Delray Beach, had a dispute with stepson Bruce Rapp, who was working for Jews for Jesus.

Bruce Rapp wrote an article for the organization's newsletter in which he allegedly implied Edith Rapp had become a believer in Jesus. In the article, Bruce Rapp claimed his stepmother began to cry when he shared a Christian tale after his father's death.

Edith Rapp claimed false light invasion of privacy and defamation, on the grounds that the article inflicted emotional distress.

The case was dismissed in trial court and was sent to the Fourth District Court of Appeal.

"We filed under two counts," Silver said. "In the [lower] appellate court, we won for false light and lost defamation. In the Supreme Court, they reversed the decision."

The Supreme Court recognized that the false light tort addresses all of the same concerns a defamation plaintiff would have. The difference rests in the legal procedure applied to both torts.

For false light, a plaintiff must prove the article would be "highly offensive to a reasonable person," whereas a defamation plaintiff must prove injury to his or her reputation.

False light's "highly offensive" standard becomes a risky debate because the standard is so imprecise.

Following past Colorado and Texas Supreme Courts rulings, the Florida Supreme Court determined false light is too vague of a claim and could ultimately have an alarming effect on the media.

David Hudson Jr., a First Amendment expert with the First Amendment Center, said the ruling puts Florida in the minority of most states.

"Some could classify [the Supreme Court's decision] as a victory for the press," Hudson said. "Most courts recognize the false light tort. Florida is in the minority."

Hudson said the ruling certainly expands the protection of the First Amendment.

To sustain an argument for defamation, the plaintiff must show damage to his or her reputation.

For those who practice Judaism, the implication of someone accepting Jesus could be very damaging.

Sam Kauffman is the assistant executive director of Central Florida Hillel, a popular Jewish organization for college students. Kauffman understands the severity of implying a Jewish person believes in Jesus.

"Jews for Jesus look and act like Jews but believe in Jesus," Kauffman said. "Jesus does not play a role in Judaism. In the Jewish community [Jews for Jesus] is seen as a Christian fundamentalism group."

He stressed the repercussions one might feel if they were seen to have left the Jewish community."

It could definitely hurt someone who could be seen as leaving the Jewish community and could definitely hurt someone's reputation," Kauffman said.

In the same situation, Kauffman said the emotional stress would affect him greatly."

I believe this [situation] would affect me greater [than Ms. Rapp]," Kauffman said. "It would affect my marriage, my relationship with my parents and my working relationships, because this is my career."

Kauffman continued to call the article slanderous.

"Just because you have the freedom of speech does not mean you can lie about someone," Silver said. "[The Court's decision] is good for us. It is a remedy to what we are seeking."

The case is currently being sent back to an appeals court to reconsider the defamation claim to decide if Edith Rapp's reputation was damaged in the eyes of "a substantial and respectable minority of the community."

Silver said he is happy the case is being sent back to trial.

"I think we should have a very free and open press," Silver said. "But no one has the right to lie about someone for kicks or revenge.

"Someone once said, 'Take my purse and you have nothing, take my good name and you take everything,' and that's how we see it."


http://media.www.centralfloridafuture.com/media/storage/paper174/news/2008/12/05/News/Supreme.Court.Overturns.False.Light.Case-3571295.shtml