Email Privacy Violated

[zealot777]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California.

I was sending letters and having regular correspondence and debate with a Roman Catholic. I was under the impression that my letters and comments were private. He then wrote a book, and put segments of my comments in his book, followed by his remarks to my comments. He even attributed to me things I never said. When I asked him about this, he said that my name used in the book referred to me, and a general archetype for other comments he received from other people. However the book does not state this. He attributed to me numerous things I never said. He never asked my permission to do this. When I discovered what he had done, I asked for an explanation. He never answered. My privacy was violated, and he attributed to me (using my name) things I never said. Is this slander? What are my rights. Thank you.

 

[tranquility]

If the community believed it was you, if the comments were false and put you in a poor light (so would be defamatory), maybe.

How much were you hurt?

 

[sandyclaus]

Normally, I wouldn't climb on this train, but posting Hx is a MUST here...

 

[Just Blue]

Normally, I wouldn't climb on this train, but posting Hx is a MUST here...

Gee ChooChoo YA THINK??

 

[zealot777]

tranquility,

I tried to reply quoting your words, but the button would not work. You asked how much I was hurt. Being "hurt" is a subjective thing. My privacy was violated, and I can potentially be hurt in an incalculable way in the future from his book. He attributed things to me that I never said, using my name as a heading. This is defamation of my character. He never even asked my permission. It's not really about whether or not I was hurt, but whether or not he had any legal right to do this in the first place.

 

[quincy]

You do have a rather interesting posting history on this forum, zealot777. Does your question here have any connection with your banning from the church (the topic of a recent thread of yours)?

It is possible, if you were credited in a book for having said things you never said, that there could be a legal action to pursue against the author and/or publisher of the book. There could be both defamation issues and privacy issues created by such content.

In order to determine if what has been written about you is defamatory and could support a defamation claim, you will need to have the part of the book, that purportedly quotes you and discusses you, personally reviewed by an attorney in your area. The attorney can review the book's content, and all of the facts that led to your inclusion in the book, and advise you accordingly.

The copyrights for the content of letters and emailed communications belong to the creators of the content so, legally, it is possible that reproducing a letter received or an email received, without permission from the sender, could infringe on the copyrights of the creator of the missive and lead to an infringement suit.

That said, very few letters or emails are original or creative enough to be copyrightable or, better-worded, afforded copyright protection under the law. If you are famous or an exceptional writer, perhaps, your words may have value. But the ordinary letter writer is neither famous nor exceptional.

There could also be privacy concerns over what is communicated in a letter or email, and an invasion of privacy/publication of private facts action or an invasion of privacy/false light action could potentially arise from the disclosure and dissemination of the content of a private or confidential communication, or the falsification or embellishment of the content.

California recognizes privacy rights both in its statutes and its constitution and it recognizes all four privacy torts so, if you are looking to sue for an invasion of your privacy over the book's content, California is probably one of the best states there is for doing so.

I suggest that you contact and consult with an attorney in your area for a personal review of the facts. And good luck, zealot. I think, based on what you have described in your past posts, that this luck is needed.

 

[ecmst12]

Oh, YOU again.

If you have $10k to spare for a retainer, feel free to sue this person. Don't expect to get anything back for it since you have no calculable, monetary damages. But if it will make you feel better to spend your money to make his life difficult, go for it

 

[quincy]

. . . . If you have $10k to spare for a retainer, feel free to sue this person. Don't expect to get anything back for it since you have no calculable, monetary damages. . . . )

I agree with you ecmst that it is expensive to sue. I don't agree that one needs to have "calculable, monetary damages" to be awarded large amounts of money in a lawsuit. Many privacy and defamation suits have no calculable monetary damages and the awards are instead based on other evidence of reputational injury that is presented in court. It willbe for a jury to decide how much a plaintiff is compensated for this injury.

In both privacy claims and defamation claims, it is often the case that there is no economic loss. But extremely high values are placed on reputations, mainly because the reputational injuries suffered in these cases cannot be healed easily. In many cases, the damage caused by the publication of private facts, by facts published that put a person in a false light, or by false facts that are published about a person is permanent.

There are definitely problems with these types of legal actions and two of them are that they tend to be extremely expensive to pursue in court, and a monetary award of damages cannot usually heal the harm that has already been done. In fact, these legal actions can even cause additional harm by the very public nature of the suit - disseminating the private or defamatory information to a wider audience and by becoming part of a public record accessible by anyone.