Galella v. Onassis
487 F.2d 986 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of the press does not grant reporters an absolute immunity from liability for torts or crimes committed in the course of newsgathering. Courts may issue narrowly tailored injunctions to protect individuals, including public figures, from harassment, assault, and invasion of privacy by members of the press.
Facts:
- Donald Galella, a self-proclaimed 'paparazzo' photographer, engaged in a continuous and aggressive campaign to photograph Jacqueline Onassis and her minor children, Caroline and John Kennedy Jr.
- Galella's tactics included bribing doormen and household staff for information on the family's whereabouts.
- On one occasion, Galella jumped into the path of John Kennedy Jr.'s bicycle in Central Park, causing the boy to swerve dangerously and alarming his Secret Service protection.
- Galella invaded the children's private schools, interrupted Caroline at tennis, and operated a power boat dangerously close to Mrs. Onassis while she was swimming.
- His conduct was often frenzied and physically intrusive, causing Mrs. Onassis and her children to fear for their safety.
- This pattern of behavior led to an encounter between Galella and the Secret Service agents assigned to protect the children.
Procedural Posture:
- Donald Galella filed suit in New York state court against three Secret Service agents and Jacqueline Onassis, alleging false arrest, malicious prosecution, and interference with his trade.
- Onassis filed a counterclaim seeking injunctive relief for harassment, invasion of privacy, assault, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- The action was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- The United States government intervened, seeking its own injunction to prevent Galella from obstructing the Secret Service's protective duties.
- The district court granted summary judgment dismissing Galella's claims against the Secret Service agents, finding they had official immunity.
- The court issued a temporary restraining order against Galella.
- After a six-week bench trial, the district court dismissed Galella's complaint in its entirety and granted a permanent injunction in favor of both Onassis and the U.S. government.
- Galella appealed the dismissal of his claims and the grant of the permanent injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the First Amendment's protection of freedom of the press immunize a photographer from liability for tortious conduct, such as harassment, assault, and invasion of privacy, committed while gathering news about a public figure?
Opinions:
Majority - J. Joseph Smith
No. The First Amendment does not provide a 'wall of immunity' protecting newsmen from liability for tortious conduct committed while gathering news. The court found Galella guilty of harassment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault and battery, and invasion of privacy. While Mrs. Onassis is a public figure, Galella's actions went far beyond the reasonable bounds of news gathering. His constant surveillance and obtrusive presence were unwarranted, especially when weighed against the minimal public importance of the family's daily activities. The court affirmed that injunctive relief was appropriate but found the district court's order overly broad. Therefore, the injunction was modified to be more narrowly tailored, prohibiting specific actions like approaching within a certain distance, while not unnecessarily infringing on reasonable news coverage.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Timbers
This opinion concurs with the majority's judgment except for its modification of the injunctive relief. The dissent argues that the appellate court showed insufficient deference to the trial court's discretion. The trial judge, after a six-week trial, was in the best position to fashion appropriate relief, and his findings were not clearly erroneous. The majority's modification, which drastically reduces the prohibited distances and uses vague terms like 'reasonably foreseen,' is unworkable and ignores Galella's history of violating prior court orders. The dissent is particularly critical of the modification that effectively removes protection for the children once they reach age 16 and are no longer under Secret Service protection.
Dissenting - Timbers
This opinion, dissenting from the denial of a rehearing en banc, argues that the case presents a substantial question of unusual importance regarding the appellate standard of review for injunctive relief. The author reiterates that the panel majority engaged in an 'unwarranted appellate interference with the discretion of the trial judge.' The decision is described as internally inconsistent for condemning Galella's 'outrageous and dangerous conduct' on one hand while 'effectively stripping' the victims of the protection of the district court's injunction on the other.
Analysis:
This case establishes the important precedent that the First Amendment does not shield journalists from liability for unlawful or tortious acts committed during newsgathering. It clarifies that while public figures have a diminished expectation of privacy, they do not forfeit all rights to personal safety and freedom from harassment. The decision affirms the judiciary's power to craft injunctions that balance the freedom of the press against individual rights, setting a legal benchmark for future 'paparazzi' cases. This ruling provides a framework for courts to determine the limits of permissible newsgathering and the appropriate scope of relief against overly aggressive media conduct.
Unlock the full brief for Galella v. Onassis