So I just got done reading the decision in Doe v. Methodist Hospital, a recent case before the Indiana Supreme Court. (Thanks to Eugene for pointing it out.) The case involved a woman who truthfully told someone else a third party was HIV positive. She did not break any laws to learn this information; someone else told her. The HIV-positive man's suit against her relied on the so-called tort of disclosure of private facts. (There are four privacy torts: intrusion upon seclusion; appropriation of likeness; public disclosure of private facts; false-light publicity.) The plaintiff could not charge her with libel or slander since what she said was true. The judges referenced an oft-cited 1890 Warren-Brandeis article that popularized the idea of suing reporters (and others) for violating your privacy if they said truthful things about you. The authors seemed mainly concerned with muzzling journalists and censoring the press, the court noted: The invasion of privacy tort had its genesis in an 1890 law review article by Boston attorney Samuel Warren and his former law partner--and future Supreme Court Justice--Louis Brandeis. An impetus for it seems to have been the press's coverage of Warren's wife's social gatherings "in highly personal and embarrasing detail." The reports covering their daughter's wedding were apparently more than the Warrens' sensibilities could bear... The authors criticized the press for "overstepping in every direction the obvious bounds of propriety and decency." They were concerned that truthful reporting about "private" affairs was causing "a lowering of social standards and of morality."... A cause of action for invasion of privacy would chill the press from reporting "unseemly gossip." The Indiana court ruled, in a plurality opinion (joined by a concurrence): [w]e do not discern anything special about disclosure injuries. Perhaps Victorian sensibilities once provided a sound basis of distinction, but our more open and tolerant society has largely outgrown such a justification. In our "been there, done that" age of talk shows, tabloids, and twelve-step programs, public disclosures of private facts are far less likely to cause shock, offense, or emotional distress than at the time Warren and Brandeis wrote their famous article. The court flatly rejected and refused to recognize the tort of disclosure of private facts. It upheld the lower court's decision to grant summary judgment to the woman who was sued. In other words: you're allowed to speak the truth. The court even noted that gossip is socially useful. Score a minor victory for free speech and freedom of the press over so-called "privacy" laws. -Declan