Aisenson v. American Broadcasting Company, Inc.

269 Cal. Rptr. 379 (1990)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D broadcast of a series of television news special reports discussing the results of an opinion poll it had conducted. The poll elicited local attorneys' opinions on the performance of Los Angeles Superior Court criminal law judges. D reported that P, then a superior court judge, had received the lowest ratings of all the judges in the poll. P alleged that the comments falsely implied that he was an incompetent judge and a 'bad guy,' that he refused to be interviewed, and that he attempted to suppress the broadcast of D’s report. The comments were as follows: '. . . The man stepping out of his home is His Honor Judge David Aisenson, the lowest ranking judge of them all. On a one to ten scale, Judge David Aisenson got an overall average score in the four's. Judge Aisenson refused to show himself to you in an interview about the survey and refused to allow a TV camera into his courtroom. We thought you should at least see his face. Judge Aisenson, in effect, followed the lead of the judge who scored the lowest on KABC's survey six years ago. . . .' '. . . Judge David Aisenson came out with the lowest score of all the judges included in the survey, an overall average score on the 10 point scale of 4.4. When lawyers were asked whether Judge Aisenson knows the law, the answer, 4.2. They gave him the lowest score overall for his sentencing habits and the lowest score overall for his behavior on the bench. Unfortunately, we can't show you Judge David Aisenson's behavior on the bench. He won't let a television camera in his courtroom, and he won't submit to a television interview about his score as the lowest ranking judge of all those in the 1983 survey. D videotaped P as he walked from his home to his car in a manner which, P alleged, '[made] it appear as if [he] were a criminal or the subject of some ongoing criminal investigation.' P sued for defamation and an invasion of privacy. D filed a motion for summary judgment. D argued that the statements were not defamatory, that they constituted protected opinion, and that they were made without malice. D argued that these same factors barred P's causes of action for invasion of privacy and that its videotape of the plaintiff was true, unaltered, and not offensive to a reasonable person; that the act of videotaping appellant from a public street was a protected newsgathering activity; and that no invasion of privacy occurred even in the absence of a constitutional protection. The court agreed and dismissed P’s suit. P appealed.