Since when is "viewpoint" a suspect classification?

(Disclaimer: I ain't no law student, far less an actual lawyer)

Eh. He's already been declared a vexatious litigant so maybe they thought they would toss him a freebee.

As soon as "Ninth Circuit" appeared, I knew it was an asshat decision.

I'm not sure about that last part, Ace. I seem to recall an early-1900's case discussed in the first week or so of Torts I in which a young lady's image was placed on a flour package in a flattering manner, together with the legend "flower of the family." She sued, claiming that the unauthorized reproduction of her image on their packaging placed her in the "false light" of promoting the flour company (a species of invasion of privacy), which she wasn't really adverse to but for which she thought she should have been paid and her permission sought.

My (admittedly strained) recollection is that she prevailed, and that this is still more or less the law on that point, viz., that placing someone in a false light is placing them in a false light, even if it's in a positive light, so long as the complaining party was damaged in some way. Here, the young lady's privacy was unquestionably invaded (but again, in a good way, as the packaging was quite flattering and the flour company was otherwise upstanding and reputable), though she was harmed economically due to the lost licensing fee.

Where am I wrong here? /O'Reilly voice

Ace, you're hurting my head.

Or, perhaps it's just the Valu-Rite. I don't even know anymore.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

If you actually read the decision - it's clear that the 9th Circuit leaps past every rationale to uphold the law (which I forgot to mention in my post - statutes are presumed constitutional and should be construed as such if possible) - in any event, the 9th Circuit leaps past every plausible defense of the law to see it as a sinister effort to criminalize dissent.

Amazingly - the entire California Supreme Court appeared to have missed that.

I believe false light is a misappropriation of your image, ID, etc. The soldier who was half-faded out of the magazine pic that went with a story on desertion would also be an example.

There is also public disclosure of private facts and invasion of privacy which are truthful by their natures, tortious interference with business relations (truth is not a defense), and a few others.

None of which makes the 9th Circus seem more reasonable on the face of things.

"False light privacy": Ace regurgitating some of his old bar exam material.

I found the right to privacy case mentioned above on LEXIS: it's Roberson v. Rochester Folding Box Co., 171 N.Y. 538 (Ct. App. N.Y. 1902) (now superceded by state statute). Looks like it's better characterized as a right of publicity rather than false light type case, but they are both species of invasion of privacy:

From the opinion at p. 543:

"It will be observed that there is no complaint made that plaintiff was libeled by this publication of her portrait. The likeness is said to be a very good one, and one that her friends and acquaintances were able to recognize; indeed, her grievance is that a good portrait of her, and, therefore, one easily recognized, has been used to attract attention toward the paper upon which defendant [flour] mill company's advertisements appear. Such publicity, which some find agreeable, is to plaintiff very distasteful, and thus, because of defendants' impertinence in using her picture without her consent for their own business purposes, she has been caused to suffer mental distress where others would have appreciated the compliment to their beauty implied in the selection of the picture for such purposes; but as it is distasteful to her [she was made sick and suffered a severe nervous shock, was confined to her bed and compelled to employ a physician and now] seeks the aid of the courts to enjoin a further circulation of the lithographic prints containing her portrait made as alleged in the complaint, and as an incident thereto, to reimburse her for the damages to her feelings, which the complaint fixes at the sum of $15,000."

Goodness, her feelings certainly were easily (and expensively) brusied. I hope they kept a fainting couch nearby.

Sorry so OT, but sometimes the minutia is as interesting as the main point.

No this makes perfect sense.

In the same light, the laws on shoplifting need to be tossed out since there is no law against bringing merchandise into a store and leaving it there.

Free Winona!!!!!

Uhm.

Does this mean that other people who make false charges- like phony rape victims, let's say- can't be prosecuted either?

Is this a precedent for allowing people to ruin innocent folks' lives with bullshit allegations?

Or does this for only apply when you're stickin' it to The Man?

Good one Jay.

And if you steal my bank account number and use it to deposit funds into my account, I promise not to press charges.

The infamous 9th circus court strikes again we are at the mercy of the most over turned court in the nation dont you think its time to put a pernimate end to this court of fools?