This may then lead to a form of self-censorship, which then leaves the news media incapable to do their job of watching and reporting.
Bad news on the other hand is the victims keep filing suits, which can be costly. The fact that the suits are still being filed may be caused by the judicial system. The courts failure to disregard the chance that a victim could possibly bring a case in which the state's interest in protecting her privacy surpasses the press' First Amendment rights still lingers. The courts also insist that their decisions are made by the facts from each individual case; this may give victims hope that one case can change the overall trend in the courts' decisions.
This paper will discuss court decisions in invasion of privacy suits, particularly in the area of media identifying rape victims. This paper will demonstrate how courts are not likely to punish the media for reporting facts like the victim's name. Within these cases each have been tried in different types of courts, some based on criminal suits, some based on criminal statutes and some on common law. Each court and judges use different legal reasons to avoid privacy claims and generally agree that media coverage of crime and courts is in the public interest and should be covered and reported as thorough as possible. The cases prove that privacy law is weak because no matter how much damage or hurt may be cause by identifying the victim, judges tends to believe that such disclosures of information are in the public interest. If news organizations fear the First Amendment will not protect their publication, which is of truthful information, they may chose not to cover issues such as rape. Courts want to avoid this before it begins because the number one purpose of the media is to report social problems, one being crime.
Literature.
Definitions:.
