Communication Strategies

A tort is legally known as a civil wrong which can either be deliberate or negligent. Tort law generally defines what a legal injury is and what is not. Tort refers to the causing of damage to a persons reputation or to property or impairment to a persons commercial interests (Lunney  Oliphant, 2003).

Before a court can order a remedy, four basic elements must be present in torts which are breach of duty by the defendant, an injury be it physical or financial it must be there, a legal duty to the victim must be owed by the defendant and causation (cause of an injury to the victim is the breach). A legal duty is enforceable commitment to conform to a particular conduct standard. Tort is not a crime. Defendants actions in most torts were an accident even though torts also cover wrongs intended by the defendant to harm the victim.

There are four common law privacy torts which are appropriation, false light, intrusion, and public disclosure of private facts.

Intrusion is an information-gathering tort which can be physical, mechanical or electronic. At the time of the intrusion is when the legal wrong occurs. Examples are peeping, trespass, photographic spying. When a person invades another persons personal affairs and private matters yet the individual has the legal right to expect privacy then that will be intrusion. To open ones mail is a crime but to go through ones garbage on the street is allowed. Intrusion cases are clearest on private property. Intrusion defenses include consent journalists do not go onto private property and common custom go on property with law enforcement (Lunney  Oliphant, 2003).

False light is another tort and is similar to libel. It occurs when publicity or news concerning an individual publicized a private fact that is not true. This is the only privacy tort that allows truth as a defense, privileged source, actual malice, is not offensive to a reasonable individual though we do not know the standards and has consent in its defense.

Appropriation is the use of an individuals likeness, name or identity for advertising or trade without hisher consent. There are two types of appropriation recognized which are private right of privacy and celebrity right of publicity. A private right of privacy gives an individual the right to be left alone, personal right, the rights die with the individual and violation will mean mental harm. They thus cannot claim loss of money. A publiccelebrity on the other hand may be transferred or inherited, a right to profit, property right and breach will cause fiscal loss. Celebrities are publicized thoroughly and as such cannot claim publicity shame. It is the oldest recognized tort and is the most legally concrete thus the plaintiff is most likely to win. Individual not identified, newsworthiness and consent are its defense claim. It is mostly used for commercial gains.

Public disclosure of private facts is the last type of tort which normally occurs when a person releases a private fact about another that a reasonable and normal individual would find offensive. Public disclosure is so intimate that publication outrages the publics sense of affability and is not of concern to public. Its defenses are consent, publicity, is not offensive to a reasonable person, newsworthiness and qualified privilege. In the case of Steve this type of tort is present (Lunney  Oliphant, 2003).

Libel is a fixed form of character defamation, exposing an individual to public mockery or disdain, a civil immoral which erroneously impugns the character or status of an individual, communication of a statement claiming to be factual and hence giving an individual a negative image. Fair comment on a matter of public interest is defendable against a defamation claim if a reasonable person could entertain such opinions the statement is protected (Wilson, 2009). Libel defenses resulting in suit dismissal before trial include the statement being of opinion rather than the fact or fair criticism and comment.

Legally there is a difference in disclosing personal indiscretions to the members of the church, public and elders. When one is disclosing information to the church heshe knows that it is going to be a confidential matter just as is the Libel mostly appears in books, billboards, posters, magazines or in a television broadcast. In this case it is libel since Steves personal information wants to be exposed to the public which will lead to Steve being ridiculed by the public. An action of libel has three principal defences justification, qualified privilege and fair comment (Wilson, 2009).

Expectation of privacy is defined as the reasonable expectation that, what one says or does will not be seen or heard by someone else. The criteria used to establish whether ones expectation of privacy in a given situation is reasonable are degree of privacy afforded by certain places or buildings, general legal principles, invasiveness and sophistication of surveillance technology used and vantage point from which the surveillance is taken.
 
In Steves case the expectation of privacy is not reasonable since the communication in question was knowingly exposed to the church leaders by Steve. The simple desire for privacy, nor the fact that one took measures to obtain it, entitles one to rationally expect it. Steve knowingly exposed something to the church leaders thus, he has no reasonable expectation of privacy in information he knowingly exposed (Wilson, 2009).

The most common defences of libel and the privacy tort regarding Steves lawsuit are consent, illegality and contributory negligence. In contributory negligence Steve being the plaintiff has through his own negligence, contributed to the harm he is suffering. This is an unfair negligence since the plaintiff will be denied compensation entirely. Economists have criticized this negligence since it does not yield optimal precaution levels in calculus negligence.

Illegality defence simply means that no action arises from an appalling cause. Steve was involved in wrongdoing at the time the negligence occurred thus reduces the defendants liability.

Consent defense (implicit, written andor explicit) is uncommon. Here, the claim made is that the claimant agreed to the propagation of the statement. When the claimant implicitly consents to the risk of loss and or damage that is when it operates. Thus, defendants ought to take active steps to fence the site and take reasonable precautions to prevent danger which is known from befalling those at risk.

Fair comment on a matter of public interest is defendable against a defamation claim if a reasonable person could entertain such opinions the statement is protected. Libel defenses resulting in suit dismissal before trial include the statement being of opinion rather than the fact or fair criticism and comment.

Legally there is a difference in disclosing personal indiscretions to the members of the church, public and elders. When one is disclosing information to the church heshe knows that it is going to be a confidential matter just as is the case of a doctor and a patient. Church leaders are only allowed by their church doctrine to disclose personal information to only its church leaders in authority and not the public (Wilson, 2009).
In this case Steve did not expect that the church elders will decide to share his personal information with anyone and thus the elders are going against their norms but in this case we cannot say that invasion of privacy was not the case since the information was given voluntarily.

A threat of disclosure by church leaders threatening to disclose the information accorded to them by Steve is compelling, but all this depends on the words used in the blackmail law.

Indiscretions made publicly are dangerous because everybody will have hisher interpretation of your story and thus one is advised to avoid making public confessions or else they will have no one to blame but themselves. Publicity of any way is not best since it makes one exposed to all sorts of vices which are hard to control and hence make an individuals life unsafe (Lunney  Oliphant, 2003).

Elders on the other hand are supposed to be the ones directing people to the right track but what do they do They use your information as a tool to spread all sorts of things about you. What do they expect us to do We shall do as they do. Where will we be heading if everyone behaves like that It is thus advisable not to trust anyone with vital information concerning your present or future life.

The first amendment issue is the courts interference with religion. Steves freedom of religion had been breached by church leaders and as such had the right to sue the church for that.

In summary, a legal difference is present. Given that the information was voluntarily disclosed to the church elders, Steve trusted the leaders to keep the information confidential. Steves freedom of religion had been breached by church leaders.