Under Construction Journal Issue 6.1 UNDER CONSTRUCTION JOURNAL 6.1 | Page 48

fact that such information is false. This scenario would increase the necessity for protecting false
information concerning the protective scope of privacy.
Furthermore, false privacy and false light torts may have little influence upon freedom of
expression since dissemination of false information without legal liability would adversely affect public
confidence in the reliability of the press and media and their role in a democratic society. The
dissemination of false information via social media may represent severe challenges to the general society
since diffusions of falsehoods may spread faster than truths and consequently arouse feelings of disgust,
fear and anger. The increased circulation of falsehoods may not only exacerbate societal challenges in the
long term, but also misallocate time and resources if one decides to rebut such falsehoods. Undermining
public trust and the media’s reliability around functioning as public-watchdogs potentially represent the
main challenge related to spreading falsehoods. This article argues that false privacy and false light may
reduce or prevent the circulation of harmful falsehoods whereas the abolition of such torts, which many
scholars call for, potentially results in increased fake news. Based on such analysis, the formulation of
false privacy and false light may help to promote freedom of expression because it might lessen
irresponsible, unfair, and sensational publications involving inaccurate and harmful information that
consequently compromise media credibility and reliability amongst the public. Moreover, false privacy
may encourage fairness and create justice between conflicting parties since it would be truly unfair to
protect the freedom of expression concerning powerful media entities with massive resources at the cost
of privacy of individuals. Media publication of what is shown to be false information would diminish the
credibility of such crucial entities within a democratic society, given the public would consequently lose
further confidence in the media’s putative community Furthermore, allowing the harmful publication of
false private information would oppose the function of a free press. Failure to face any legal liability for
violating others’ private interests would be potentially inconsistent with the ideal and necessarily re-
enforced role of the free press in serving political and social functions within a democratic society .
Conclusion
The mere fact of overlap between defamation and English false privacy and American false light may not
provide a sufficiently convincing argument for abolishing such torts. Instead, there are strong arguments
for withholding these torts within the protective scope of privacy law given false privacy, similar to false
light, protects the core values of privacy rights. Furthermore, the recognition of such torts may enhance
39