Time Inc. V. Hill Case Study

A controversial and very popular media case that took place decades ago is the Time, Inc. v. Hill. This particular case took place in 1967 in New York.

James Hill and his wife and five children were victims of hostage in their Whitemarsh Township, Pennsylvania home by three escaped convicts in 1952. The family members were held hostage for 19 hours and the criminals were captured shortly after leaving the Hill’s home. The family received plenty of media attention and relocated to Connecticut in efforts to get away from this attention. During this day and age stories like this were unheard of, that is why this received so much notice from the public.

The following year, author Joseph Hayes wrote a novel called “The Desperate Hours” which

Medina, Jr. represented Life magazine. Medina asserted that the privacy law in New York was unconstitutional because it is too broad and corrective. Medina also argued that the prior ruling in the case was unsuitable because the jury was allowed to conclude liability of Life based on the inaccuracy of the article, while neglecting to take into account whether or not the act by the magazine was reckless or willful. Nixon argued that a fictional account is not newsworthy and the privacy law does not impact freedom of the press. He put forth that the “fictionalization” aspect of privacy law did not harm freedom of expression. Medina requested the Court declare the privacy law in question

One need only pick up any newspaper or magazine to comprehend the vast range of published matter, which exposes persons to public view, both private citizens and public officials. Exposure of the self to others in varying degrees is a concomitant of life in a civilized community. The risk of this exposure is an essential incident of life in a society which places a primary value on freedom of speech and press.” The dissenting opinion of justices was written by Justice Fortas, Justice Tom C. Clark, Chief Justice Earl Warren and Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote another dissent. Justice Harlan detected that as Hill was not a public individual, he was incapable to attain noteworthy viewership for a potential response. He noted that this created a problem of "unchallengeable untruth", and stated a necessity would have been to request Hill prove negligence on the part of Life magazine 's editorship in their