Actually, I am not going to take the time to try to rebutt your post (since I do believe it is a mis-application), but provide the following...
Okay, lets take a look at your 'found information':
"One who gives publicity to a matter concerning the private life of another is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the matter publicized is of a kind that:
1. Would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and
2. Is not of legitimate concern to the public."
*** Personally, I don't find that the 'publishing' of that information is "highly offensive" as long as it is accurate. And I assume I am a fairly 'reasonable' person.
"The main determination in a publicity given to private life lawsuit is whether the matter being publicized is public or private."
*** Partly agreed. I find the issue of damages incurred as a result of that publication is equally important. And this case has no 'damage' (in my opinion).
"If the matter is one of public concern, there is no invasion of privacy."
*** Agreed.
"First Amendment rights protect the publication of items of legitimate public interest."
*** Don't agree. The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. "
I don't see anything in this issue where Congress has been involved in legitimizing or prohibiting 'free speech'.
"However, if the matter is not one of public concern, and it is one that people would find offensive, there is an invasion of privacy."
*** See above.
"An example of publicity given to private life would be publicizing the fact that your neighbor has failed to pay his credit card bill for three months."
*** Agreed. And part of the reason that would be a violation would be that the reporter is NOT involved in the transaction between the neighbor and HIS/HER creditor. In this case, the creditor is the one making the publication. This is no different than the owner of a bad new car painting it yellow, putting "This is a lemon" signs on it and parking it in front of the dealer, on public property. Done all the time!!
"Sometimes there is difficulty in determining whether something really is of legitimate public concern. Courts have held that a claim that a person violated the law is relevant and newsworthy; even though it was later proven that the substance of the complaint was false.)"
*** Agreed. And that proof or lack of is one of the main problems in this issue.
So, for the sake of argument.... lets say you win. That you feel the actions are a violation of privacy. Now, what are you going to do?? Are you going to risk a few thousand dollars in legal fees to try to bring a claim against them??? Are you going to wait the two plus years for it to come to a trial???
Of course not. You are going to try to bluff the management into folding by waving that found information in front of them..... and if they don't back down on their own..... you will fold up your tent and go home.
