Jacobson v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc.

Majority - Justice Hoffman

No, Amy Jacobson is a limited-purpose public figure requiring proof of actual malice for her defamation and false light claims, and she did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy for her activities in the Stebic backyard. The court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment for CBS on all counts. First, the court determined that Jacobson was a limited-purpose public figure for purposes of the Stebic disappearance controversy. Applying the three-part Waldbaum test adopted in Illinois (as recognized in Kessler v. Zekman), the court found: (1) The disappearance of Lisa Stebic was a public controversy, characterized as a "huge" and ubiquitous story with widespread public interest and debate. (2) Jacobson voluntarily inserted herself into this controversy by becoming the "owner" of the story, relentlessly pursuing leads, frequenting the Stebic home, participating in public events, and cultivating close relationships with the Stebic family to gain unique access. Her existing notoriety as a prominent reporter, combined with these efforts, thrust her into the public spotlight. (3) The alleged defamation (the broadcast about her conduct) was germane to her participation in the controversy, as it sparked public outcry and debate regarding her journalistic ethics. Second, the court found no triable issue of fact that CBS acted with "actual malice" (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth) in broadcasting the edited videotape. While CBS and NBC were competitors and a CBS reporter may have harbored competitive ill will, this is insufficient alone to prove actual malice (Kessler, Hart-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton). The broadcast footage, although capable of a sexual interpretation by some, was not the only permissible interpretation, especially given the presence of Jacobson's children. The court stated that the images of Jacobson and Craig Stebic were warranted to convey the gist of the report and that the plaintiff failed to establish that CBS subjectively intended or recklessly disregarded a false, defamatory sexual implication (Saenz v. Playboy Enterprises, Inc.). The public outrage was not just at CBS's conduct but also at Jacobson's actions. Third, the court rejected Jacobson's claim for intrusion upon seclusion. It concluded she did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the Stebics' backyard because: (1) The property was at a lower elevation, allowing clear visibility of the pool area and sliding door from the ground floor of the rear neighbors, a public sidewalk, and an adjoining grassy public area. (2) The Stebic home was under constant media and law enforcement observation. Jacobson, as an experienced reporter and lead on the story, could not reasonably expect seclusion in a readily visible area. The fact that a zoom lens might have been used was not dispositive, especially since her car, identifying her, was parked in front of the house. (3) The videotape revealed no specific act that could be considered private, showing Jacobson from a distance, with a towel, primarily walking and talking on her cell phone (Lawlor v. North American Corp., Lovgren v. Citizens First Nat. Bank, Johnson v. Kmart). Finally, the court affirmed the dismissal of Jacobson's claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and tortious interference, finding them to be derivative of the already rejected defamation and invasion of privacy claims and lacking an independent basis for liability.