Critical Thinking On Action

Ellen Johnston v. One American Production, Inc.

Breach of the right of privacy as guaranteed by the constitution
Act
She sued the defendants. Allegedly, the defendants had included in their video a scene where she appeared to take part in cleansing the defendant after a camp meeting without her consent. Defendants brought a motion to dismiss the claim

Trial Court

Stayed the proceedings in favor of the plaintiff. According to the court, the defendants had not established the factual allegations of the plaintiff, hence could not seek such a motion

Court of appeal

Issue was rightly handled without being forwarded to the court of appeal as no party contested the ruling of the trial court

Issue

1. When does a motion to dismiss have enough weight to guarantee such a move, as stipulated by Rule 12(b) (6)?
2. Does lack of consent from one party amount to infringement of the right to privacy?

Holding

Accordingly, the motion to dismiss by the defendants was dismissed. The trial court found that the defendants had infringed the plaintiff’s right of privacy, hence were against the law.

Rule or Reason

The context with which the plaintiff was captured was in itself incriminatory. Although it was apparent that the plot of the film and the film itself were fictional, there is no doubt that the plaintiff’s image would be negatively affected as regards to the way she was portrayed by the film (Beznoska, 12).

Ethnical norms

Freedom, privacy, individual rights, justice, security
Analogies
Judge Pepper, Johnston, One America Productions.
Missing Information
Necessary steps taken to ensure the right to privacy is protected are not discussed, hence safe to argue that the ruling was not conclusive.

Ambiguity

Private actions, actions against the law

Works Cited

Beznoska, Christy S. "The Evolution of the Constitutional Right to Personal Privacy and the Consequences of the Griswold Decision." (2008): Print.