Solano Vs Playgirl - Grade: A PDF

Preview

Summary

Paper about invasion of privacy, highlighting the case of Playgirl vs. Solano...

Description

Jackson 1 Imani Jackson Professor Nichols Communication 4310 19 April 2019 Solano v. Playgirl, Inc. 292 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2002) Playgirl was supposed to be a “raunchy, revolutionary magazine for women” (Rettenmund), but unfortunately it did not play out that way. Its first issue hit the stands in June of 1973, during the sexual revolution of the 70s. Playgirl had a “mission similar to its longstanding counterpart: to feature nude centerfolds alongside hard-hitting features by and for women” (Rettenmund). Playgirl made objectifying men normal, which was basically unheard of then. Men were allowed to ogle and objectify women to their hearts content, but when women wanted to do the same it was considered dirty. Playgirl was considered a breakthrough for women because although it had nude men as its centerfold (and finally allowed women to celebrate their sexual desires) it also had articles about abortion and breast cancer. However through time, it lost its focus on celebrating women and became more about the raunchiness. In an interview with Esquire Michelle Zip, an editor who worked for Playgirl from 1999-2005 said “We did a major revamp in 2002. I handed in the final product and we got it back with a Post-it on it: "Eight penises!" They counted only eight penises through the whole ninety-six-page book and were very upset. They wanted a penis on every page” This attitude of wanting penises on every page and trying to force feed sex to the masses is what caused Playgirl to be sued by José Solano.

Jackson 2 Statement of Facts: According to our text book Cases in Communication Law, in January of 1999 Playgirl magazine featured José Solano, Jr., on their cover. Solano was most known for his role in the television show Baywatch. On the cover, Solano was shown without his shirt and wearing the red lifeguard swimsuit, the uniform of his Baywatch character, under the heading: TV Guys. PRIMETIME’S SEXY YOUNG STARS EXPOSED. It should be noted that Playgirl’s primary audience was women and the magazine regularly featured men with an emphasis on their genitalia, including but not limited to showing them in simulated sex acts. Solano however did not pose or give an interview to Playgirl nor did he appear nude in the magazine, so he sued alleging it deliberately created the false impression that he did so, making it appear he was willing to downgrade himself and endorse such a magazine (Siegel 135). The district court granted Playgirl summary judgment because they found that Solano failed to prove that Playgirl created a false impression about what readers would see in the magazine. Solano’s team disagreed and reversed for a trial. They held that he provided sufficient evidence to create triable issues of fact for the jury on the elements of each of his causes of action. Legal/Constitutional Questions: The legal questions considered in this case was whether or not Playgirl committed the tort of false light by publishing Solano’s picture on the cover coupled with degrading and offensive headlines and phrases describing the content of the magazine (CaseBriefs). Court Decisions: A California Federal Court sided with Playgirl and granted summary judgment in favor of Playgirl on claims of false light and misappropriation. Solano sued Playgirl for misappropriation, false light and embarrassment in California state court in November 1999, and

Jackson 3 the magazine had it transferred to federal district court three months later. Judge Dickran Tevrizian granted Playgirl‘s motion for summary judgment on February 13, 2002. Reasoning of Decision: Tevrizian first ruled that Solano’s claims for privacy were not barred by California’s one-year statute of limitations, even though the suit was brought one year and 11 days after the magazine was first sent to subscribers. Tevrizian ruled that the statute of limitations commenced at a later date, the time when the magazine hit newsstands or was seen by a majority of subscribers. The judge also ruled Solano to be a general-purpose public figure because he had a three-year run on the popular television program. Therefore, Solano had to prove by clear and convincing evidence that editors entertained serious doubts about the veracity of the publication, which he failed to do. Solano failed in his false light claim, Tevrizian ruled, because merely putting a photograph of a celebrity in or on an explicit magazine was insufficient to cast aspersion on a person. Solano’s primary argument that the nature of the magazine and the headlines displayed on the cover cast him in a false light because he was bare-chested amidst sexually explicit headlines was validated in court. Solano also had to prove that Playgirl editors knowingly or recklessly created the false impression by establishing actual malice. Because some staff of Playgirl did raise concerns during the creation of the magazine the court did find the actual malice standard satisfied. The third element of false light is damages, and Solano was unable to provide concrete evidence of any damages. He could only speculate that he lost out on invites to charity fundraisers and jobs, there was no evidence that his appearance on the cover of Playgirl contributed to the lost invites. Also not helping prove damages in Solano’s case was testimony from his current and previous agent as well as a previous manager testified that no one had ever brought up his cover on Playgirl as an issue to them. Solano also did not seek therapy or any other treatment from a

Jackson 4 medical professional. Finally, the court ruled that the misappropriation claim failed because a magazine may publish a truthful, newsworthy use of a person’s image if it is a matter of public interest. (ReportersCommittee) Bottomline: This decision established that a sexually suggestive magazine can use your picture and as long as it does explicitly tell untruths. Playgirl magazine argued that exposed meant different from nude meaning that they did not promise Solano would be nude in the magazine. Also Solano’s inability to prove any actual damages did not establish his false light claim although he was able to prove that Playgirl created a false impression about him that did not represent his wholesome nature and actual malice.

Jackson 5 Works Cited

“Chapter 5, Invasion of Privacy.” Cases in Communication Law, by Paul Siegel, Rowman & Littlefield, 2014, pp. 134–138. “Playgirl Prevails in 'Baywatch' Actor's Privacy Suit.” The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 19 Dec. 2018, www.rcfp.org/playgirl-prevails-baywatch-actors-privacy-suit/. Rettenmund, Matthew. “A Penis on Every Page: The Rise and Fall of Playgirl.” Esquire, 4 May 2018, www.esquire.com/entertainment/a55592/playgirl-magazine-history/. “Solano v. Playgirl, Inc.” Casebriefs Solano v Playgirl Inc Comments, www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/torts/torts-keyed-to-dobbs/communication-of-personallyharmful-impressions-to-others/solano-v-playgirl-inc/....