Under Construction Journal Issue 6.1 UNDER CONSTRUCTION JOURNAL 6.1 | Page 42

English False Privacy vs. American False Light: forward steps to reduce harmful disinformation and increase press reliability Haider Hasan Ali Jinana • PhD in Law, Keele University, sponsored by the University of Technology, Iraq This article focuses on analysing the tort of false light within American jurisdiction to advance further justifications for the false privacy concept recently developed in English jurisdiction. Despite the differences between American and English concepts, false privacy may find strong doctrinal and conceptual grounds for justification within the literature of false light. This article argues that false privacy would play a crucial role in maintaining not only our privacy but also for increasing the credibility of the press since false privacy may help to reduce falsehoods if the media are held liable under privacy law; as a good, this is predicated upon the notion that the press plays a watchdog function in democratic society. postfeminism’s relationship with both consumer culture and neo-liberal ideologies. Keywords: False Light Law, Tort, Press Reliability, False Privacy Law, comparisons between US and UK Law, Legal overlaps Introduction Controversies around false privacy arose shortly after direct protection of privacy interests became recognized within English jurisdiction. Many scholars argue that false privacy ought to be excluded from the protective remit of the new cause of action relating to misuse of private information (MOPI) in order to maintain the coherence of law and to preserve the doctrinal framework of both defamation and privacy torts. Such an argument has also been used to argue that American false light should be excluded from the scope of privacy law since falsity, materially speaking, ought only to be protected by defamation law. This article shows how the unauthorised publication of false information may undermine privacy interests. It also explains the significant role of false privacy and false light in reducing disinformation on the one hand, and increasing press credibility on the other. Such arguments, as this article emphasises, may support judicial recognition of false privacy in English jurisdiction. To achieve this ta article will be divided 33