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