Privacy timeline

1890 — Harvard Law Review publishes "The Right to Privacy." 4 Harvard Law Review, pp. 193-220. Authors Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis (the future Supreme Court justice) state their case for invasion of privacy as a legal tort. More than 100 years later, privacy experts cite that article as the cornerstone for all privacy law.

1893 — Corliss v. Walker, 57 Fed. Rep. 434. Federal Judge LeBaron Colt rejects claims that a biography of a deceased inventor constitutes an invasion of privacy in what is considered the first federal privacy case. Colt says that recognizing the right to privacy would restrict freedom of the press.

1903 — New York passes a state privacy law that prohibits the unauthorized use of an individual's name or picture for advertising or trade purposes.

1905 — Pavesich v. New England Life Ins., 122 Ga. 190. Georgia becomes the first state in which a court legally recognizes the right to privacy.

1908 — Moser v. Press Pub. Co., 109 N.Y.S. 963. A New York court rules that the use of articles and photographs in a newspaper doesn't qualify under state law as a "trade purpose" and denies a man's claim that the publication of his name and picture violated his privacy.

1928 — Brandeis offers concept of "right to be let alone" to the U.S. Supreme Court in dissent in Olmstead v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438, a case involving the wiretapping of a liquor dealer.

1960 — California Law Review publishes William Prosser's article "Privacy." 48 California Law Review, pp. 383-423. Prosser postulates that the concept of invasion of privacy is actually an assemblage of four related but distinct torts: intrusion, public disclosure of private facts, false light and appropriation of character for commercial use.

1967 — Time Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374. The Supreme Court, in its first privacy case involving the news media, rules against a family claiming that a photo layout in Life magazine invaded their privacy. The court determines that if a plaintiff files a false-light claim arising out of an issue of public interest, he or she is required to prove that the defendant published the article with knowledge of its falsity or in reckless disregard of the truth. Uses the standard adopted in 1964 in New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254.

1974 — Cantrell v. Forest City Publishing Co., 419 U.S. 245. The Supreme Court determines that The Plain Dealer of Cleveland knowingly or recklessly published falsehoods about the widow of man killed when an Ohio River bridge collapsed.

1974 — Gertz v. Welch, 418 U.S. 323. The Supreme Court abandons the actual-malice standard for private figures, saying plaintiff didn't have to prove that a magazine acted recklessly or knowingly in publishing falsehoods against him. The decision frees states to develop their own standards of defamation for private figures.

1975 — Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469. The Supreme Court overturns an award for damages imposed against a television station which broadcast the name of a rape-murder victim.

1977 — Oklahoma Publishing Co. v. Oklahoma County District Court, 430 U.S. 308. The Supreme Court finds unconstitutional a state court's pretrial order enjoining the media from publishing the name or photograph of an 11-year-old boy in connection with a juvenile proceeding that the media attended.

1979 — Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co., 443 U.S. 97. The Supreme Court overturns a state law forbidding newspapers from publishing the name of any youth charged as a juvenile offender.

1988 — Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46. The Supreme Court holds that the Rev. Jerry Falwell, who sued Hustler alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress, has to prove that the publication contained a false statement of fact published with knowledge or with reckless disregard as to its truth.

1989 — Florida Star v. B.J.F., 491 U.S. 524. The Supreme Court strikes down a jury award against a newspaper which violated a state law forbidding publication of the name of a sexual-offense victim. But the court majority acknowledges that privacy concerns, in a similar case with different facts, might outweigh press rights.

1999 — Los Angeles Police Department v. United Reporting Publishing Corp., 98-678. The Supreme Court upholds a California law that forbids the release of police-blotter information to companies that use the data for commercial purposes.

Sources: Don Pember, Privacy and the Press (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1972); Bruce Sanford, Libel and Privacy (New York: Aspen Law & Business, 1999); Barbara Dill, Journalist's Handbook on Libel and Privacy (New York: Macmillan Inc., 1986); and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.