The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1902-09-30

ing that no cause of action existed in
favor Of a young woman whose picture
appeared on certain barrel heads, not
withstanding her complaint that she
suffered deep humiliation and that her
right Of privacy was Illegally invaded.
Now, the ground on which the New
York court of appeals rests it's refusal
to give relief against this invasion of
the so-called right of privacy is rather
sweeping. The court argues that "the
right of privacy, once established as
legal doctrine, cannot be confined to
the restraint of the publication of a
likeness, but must necessarily embrace
as well the domestic relations or hab-
it's. And were the right of privacy once
legally asserted, it would be necessarily
held to include the same things if
spoken instead of printed; for one, as
we'll as the other, invades the right to
be absolutely let alone"
Followed to it's logical conclusion,
there can be no invasion of the right
of privacy under this decision that
law. 1t does not appear that this par
ticular young lady regarded the picture
of herself on the barrel heads as be-
ing libel on her good looks, but that
she took exception alone to the often
sive nature of the publicity coming to
her personality and affairs which was
involved. The humiliation, no doubt,
was rather the use to which the flour
concern put her likeness, and from this
point of view it certainly does appear
| as if the young lady had legitimate
ground on which to base her claim for
damages on account of the humiliation
involved. Injury to ones feelings is
an invariable ground of action set forth
in all suits brought on account of the
| invasion of personal rights, from ac-
tons for assault and battery to those
of libel
No intelligent or discriminating per-
son can be expected to take exception
| to the discussion of himself or his af-
| fairs in the public press within the
| limits of respect and propriety. There
| may be sentimental objection to be
raised to having ones affairs thrust
| upon the general attention when it
was not sought, but if there were moth
ing which reflected upon the character
| or conduct of the person thus brought
| into prominence, we think the person
of ordinary understanding will agree in
the statement that there is no legiti-
mate ground upon which to rest a
| claim for damages. This, ne doubt, is
| the idea which underlies the decision of
| the New York court of appeals.
It is hard to believe that any news
| paper or any business concern can for
it's own purposes take the personal or
| the private affairs of a given citizen
and give them publicity in any uncom-
plimentary or undesirable relationship
without that person having a remedy
at law for such violation Of personal
right. If the law does not involve pro-
lection for the Individual against such
deliberate and wrongful misuse of 9TH
ers' rights then it certainly should be
SilaHSeu. AS loHS DIS d pefSoH, DIS the
citizen, does not assume any public re-
lationship whatever the right to re-
serve himself or herself from general
discussion ought to be recognized; GER
tainly so when the relationship in
which the discussion or publicity comes
to him or her involves reasonably any
measure Of distress to an ordinarily
sensitive mind.