Court Opinion

ID: 9768386
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 06:00:46.538968+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:40.370724
License: Public Domain

Justice HIGHTOWER,
joined by
Justice DOGGETT, Justice GAMMAGE and Justice SPECTOR, dissenting.
I agree with several propositions stated by the court. First, I agree that Texas continues to recognize a cause of action for violation of the right to privacy when there is an intrusion into an individual’s seclusion or when there is a public disclosure of embarrassing private facts. Second, I agree that certain publications that do not constitute defamation may constitute false light. Third, I agree that, in the name of privacy, we cannot ignore free speech rights under either the Texas or the United States Constitution. I cannot, however, agree with this court’s decision to reject the tort of false light invasion of privacy.
The right of privacy is “the right of an individual to be left alone, to live a life of seclusion, to be free from unwarranted publicity.” E.g. Billings v. Atkinson, 489 S.W.2d 858, 859 (Tex.1973) (citing 77 C.J.S. Right of Privacy § 1); Pavesich v. New England Life Ins. Co., 122 Ga. 190, 50 S.E. 68, 71 (1905) (stating that the legal right to be let alone has existed since Roman times and that there were ancient punishments for attracting attention to others); Ken Gormley, One Hundred Years of Privacy, 1992 Wis.L.Rev. 1335, 1367-68 (stating that privacy and protection of individuality in constitutional and tort law come from the same swath of common law, both designed to assure individual liberty); Thomas M. Cooley, Cooley on Toets 29 (2d ed. 1888); see also Diamond Shamrock Refining & Mktg. Co. v. Mendez, 844 S.W.2d 198, 203 (Tex.1992) (Hightower, J., concurring) (recognizing that the right of individual privacy is implicit among the general, great, and essential principles of liberty). Independent of the common law rights of property, contract, reputation, and physical integrity, the right to privacy exists and an invasion of the right gives rise to a cause of action. Billings, 489 S.W.2d at 860. The right embodies the esteem that a civilized society holds for the values of personal dignity, integrity, and sense of selfhood. Frank J. Cavico, Invasion of Privacy in the Private Employment Sector: Tortious and Ethical Aspects, 30 Hous.L.Rev. 1263, 1265 (1993). It is the scope of this right that the court *585unduly narrows today. It is the violation of this right for which the court refuses to allow a complete remedy.
The court concedes that a number of courts have treated false light as a viable cause of action in Texas, dating back for over a decade, see Gill v. Snow, 644 S.W.2d 222, 224 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1982, no writ);1 however, the court rejects a clear majority rule,2 joining a minority of one state supreme *586court in squarely rejecting false light invasion of privacy.3 The court proffers two rationales for its decision to sever this branch of privacy from its complements. The court argues first that false light largely duplicates defamation and second that false light unduly increases the tensions between tort and free speech law. Not only do these arguments strain against each other, but they simply are not persuasive.
That the substance of communications constituting defamation will usually also constitute false light does not make the two torts coextensive. The scope of actionable conduct differs between the torts, and the torts are designed to protect different interests.
First, the court rightly notes, as do many courts and commentators, that there are communications which, based on their content, are not defamatory but may be false light violations of privacy because they are highly offensive. E.g., Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374, 384-85 n. 9, 87 S.Ct. 534, 540-41, 17 L.Ed.2d 456 (1967); Crump v. Beckley Newspapers, Inc., 173 W.Va. 699, 320 S.E.2d 70, 87 (1983); William L. PROSSER, Law of Torts 813 (4th ed. 1971); see also Diane Leenheer Zimmerman, False Light Invasion of Privacy: The Light that Failed, 64 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 364, 367 n. 16 & 396 (1989). For example, an article which falsely reports that an individual suffers from a serious disease such as cancer would not be defamatory but could comprise a cause of action for false light. Gary T. Schwartz, Explaining and Justifying A Limited Tort of False Light Invasion of Privacy, 41 Case W.Res.L.Rev. 885, 895 (1991).4
Second, the torts protect different interests. Defamation preserves individuals’ reputation interests, but false light invasion of privacy, as the other branches of the right of privacy, safeguards individuals’ sensitivities about what people know and believe about them. E.g. Godbehere v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., 162 Ariz. 335, 783 P.2d 781, 787 (1989); Crump, 320 S.E.2d at 87; Frank J. Cavico, Invasion of Privacy in the Private *587Employment Sector: Tortious and Ethical Aspects, 30 Hous.L.Rev. 1263, 1276 n. 42 (1993); Bryan R. Lasswell, Comment, In Defense of False Light: Why False Light Must Remain A Viable Cause of Action, 34 S.Tex.L.Rev. 149, 156, 163 & 172 (1993); Ken Gormley, One Hundred Years of Privacy, 1992 Wis.L.Rev. 1335, 1352 (stating that privacy as a tort notion reflects an instinct in the common law to preserve an individual’s inviolate personality); Jerry A. Gibson, The Developing Law of Tort Liability for Nom-Physical Harm,: A Guide for the Texas Practitioner, 18 St. Maey’s L.J. 899, 928-29 (1987); Gary T. Schwartz, Explaining and Justifying A Limited Tort of False Light Invasion of Privacy, 41 Case W.Res.L.Rev. 885, 897-98 (1991); Melville B. Nimmer, The Right to Speak from Times to Time: First Amendment Theory Applied to Libel and Misapplied to Privacy, 56 Cal.L.Rev. 935, 958 (1968); see Gruschus v. Curtis Publishing Co., 342 F.2d 775, 776 (10th Cir.1965) (noting that damage to reputation is relevant to suits for libel but not to suits for invasion of privacy); Walter D. Fisher, Jr., Note, Remvick v. News & Observer Publishing Co.: North Carolina Rejects the False Light Invasion of Privacy Tort, 63 N.C.L.Rev. 767, 773-74 (1985); see generally Diane Leenheer Zimmerman, False Light Invasion of Privacy: The Light that Failed, 64 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 364, 371-72 (1989).
The need for protection of individual sensitivity already has been recognized by this court:
[T]he increased complexity and intensity of modern civilization and the development of man’s spiritual sensibilities have rendered man more sensitive to publicity and have increased his need of privacy, while the great technological improvements in the means of communication have more and more subjected the intimacies of his private life to exploitation by those who pander to commercialism and to prurient and idle curiosity. A legally enforceable right of privacy is deemed to be a proper protection against this type of encroachment upon the personality of the individual.
Billings v. Atkinson, 489 S.W.2d 858, 860 (Tex.1973) (quoting 62 Am.JuR.2d Privacy § 4, p. 683).
That, in some cases, both torts allow mental anguish damages does not detract from these differing protections. Cf. Godbehere v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., 162 Ariz. 335, 783 P.2d 781, 786 (1989) (finding that although actions for intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy compensate similar damages, there is no reason to refuse to recognize both torts). For example, mental anguish damages are available in suits for medical malpractice, certain violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, or personal injury, but that does not mean that the torts duplicate each other or the interests they serve.
Furthermore, the scopes of the torts differ with respect to the level of publicity required for the cause of action to arise. False light requires significantly broader publication than does defamation. Defamation only requires publication to a single individual, but false light requires widespread dissemination. E.g. Crump v. Beckley Newspapers, Inc., 173 W.Va. 699, 320 S.E.2d 70, 87-88 (1983); Bryan R. Lasswell, Comment, In Defense of False Light: Why False Light Must Remain A Viable Cause of Action, 34 S.Tex.L.Rev. 149, 173 (1993); Walter D. Fisher, Jr., Note, Renwick v. News & Observer Publishing Co.: North Carolina Rejects the False Light Invasion of Privacy Tort, 63 N.C.L.Rev. 767, 776 n. 73 (1985); compare Restatement (Second) of Torts § 563 (1977) (stating that the publication requirement in defamation only requires dissemination to a third party) with Moore v. Big Picture Co., 828 F.2d 270, 274 (5th Cir.1987) (noting that false light requires widespread publicity). And, the court could require that the plaintiff in a false light case meet a higher burden of proof than in defamation. See Machleder v. Diaz, 801 F.2d 46, 56 (2d Cir.1986) (stating that the burden of proof in false light is clear and convincing evidence but only a preponderance of the evidence in defamation), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1088, 107 S.Ct. 1294, 94 L.Ed.2d 150 (1987).
*588The court’s conclusion that many, if not all, of the injuries redressed by the false light tort are redressed by defamation is plainly wrong as a matter of logic. That false light covers some of the injuries covered by defamation in no way leads to the conclusion that defamation covers most of the injuries covered by false light.
Furthermore, overlap, by itself, is no reason to reject a cause of action for false light invasion of privacy. For example, in Texas, a citizen who feels cheated in a financial transaction has a variety of choices for a cause of action, including a claim for fraud, violation of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, breach of warranty, or a combination of any and all of these claims. Moreover, although traditional theories such as actions for eavesdropping and wiretapping protected individuals from invasions into their private business and personal affairs, the availability of such actions did not preclude the court from adopting the right of privacy in the wiretapping context. Billings v. Atkinson, 489 S.W.2d 858, 860 (Tex.1973).
The court’s only explanation of why it will tolerate no overlap in this arena is that free speech rights are implicated because the procedures attending defamation are lacking. Rather than assess and weigh the interests at stake in each right5 and add any procedures necessary to effectuate an even balance of the rights, the court simply concludes that false light invasion of privacy and free speech cannot coexist.6
The court questions the constitutional viability of false light invasion of privacy in a cursory and unsatisfactory analysis. For example, the court fails to address the United States Supreme Court’s acceptance of false light invasion of privacy so long as the plaintiff proves that the defendant acted with actual malice — that is, with knowledge of the falsity or in reckless disregard for the truth. Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374, 387-90, 87 S.Ct. 534, 541-43, 17 L.Ed.2d 456 (1967) (explaining the standard and noting that “consti*589tutional guarantees can tolerate sanctions against calculated falsehood without significant impairment of their essential function”); see also Cantrell v. Forest City Publishing Co., 419 U.S. 245, 251-53, 95 S.Ct. 465, 469-71, 42 L.Ed.2d 419 (1974) (reaffirming the standard set forth in Time). Application of the Time standard adequately secures federal free speech rights.7 Gary T. Schwartz, Explaining and Justifying A Limited Tort of False Light Invasion of Privacy, 41 Case W.Res.L.Rev. 885, 906 (1991) (noting that the intentional or reckless falsehood test essentially eliminates the spectre of unconstitutionality); Bryan R. Lasswell, Comment, In Defense of False Light: Why False Light Must Remain A Viable Cause of Action, 34 S.Tex.L.Rev. 149, 174 (1993) (stating that free speech criticisms of false light invasion of privacy are not valid in light of Time); see Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 342, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 3008, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974) (explaining that the actual malice standard administers a powerful antidote to the inducement to media self-censorship and that it exacts a correspondingly high price from plaintiffs who are subjected to injury but who will not be able to surmount the standard). Instead of abiding by the decisions of the federal courts on the first amendment issue, the court relies on a lone commentator in implying that the United States Supreme Court failed in its constitutional analysis. That cannot be the proper role for this court.
The right of privacy and the right to speak have coexisted, and each must be recognized and enforced with due respect for the other. Pavesich v. New England Life Ins. Co., 122 Ga. 190, 50 S.E. 68, 73 (1905). That recognizing a right of privacy involves perplexing questions to determine where it ends and the rights of others and of the public begin is a poor excuse for not recognizing the right of privacy. Id. at 72. Cases may arise near the border marking the right of privacy and the right of another individual or of the public, but this is true of many other individual rights recognized by the law. Id. Our justice system allows us to remain confident that with
honest and fearless trial judges to pass in the first instance upon the question of law as to the existence of the right in each case, whose decisions are subject to review by the court of last resort, and with fair and impartial juries to pass upon the questions of fact involved, and assess the damages in the event of a recovery, whose verdict is, under our law, in all eases subject to supervision and scrutiny by the trial judge, within the limits of a legal discretion, there need be no more fear that the right of privacy will be the occasion of unjustifiable litigation, oppression, or wrong than that the existence of many other rights in the law would bring about such results.

Id.

I respectfully dissent.

. See also Maewal v. Adventist Health Sys., 868 S.W.2d 886, 888 & 894 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1993, writ denied); Reeves v. Western Co. of N. Am., 867 S.W.2d 385, 396-97 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1993, writ requested); Mitre v. La Plaza Mall, 857 S.W.2d 752, 755 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1993, writ denied); Mitre v. Brooks Fashion Stores, Inc., 840 S.W.2d 612, 621-23 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1992, writ denied); Wavell v. Caller-Times Pub. Co., 809 S.W.2d 633, 634-36 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1991, writ denied); Boyles v. Kerr, 806 S.W.2d 255, 258-59 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 1991), rev’d on other grounds, 855 S.W.2d 593 (Tex.1993); Clarke v. Denton Publishing Co., 793 S.W.2d 329, 331 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1990, writ denied); Covington v. Houston Post, 743 S.W.2d 345, 347 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, no writ); Floyd v. Park Cities People, 685 S.W.2d 96, 97 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1985, no writ); Moore v. Charles B. Pierce Film Enters., 589 S.W.2d 489, 490 (Tex.Civ.App.—Texarkana 1979, writ ref'd n.r.e.); McLean v. International Harvester Co., 817 F.2d 1214, 1219-20 (5th Cir.1987); Faloona v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 799 F.2d 1000, 1005-07 (5th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1088, 107 S.Ct. 1295, 94 L.Ed.2d 151 (1987); Wood v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 736 F.2d 1084, 1088 (5th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1107, 105 S.Ct. 783, 83 L.Ed.2d 777 (1985); Braun v. Flynt, 726 F.2d 245, 252-53 (5th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 883, 105 S.Ct. 252, 83 L.Ed.2d 189 (1984); Ritzmann v. Weekly World News, Inc., 614 F.Supp. 1336, 1340 (N.D.Tex.1985); Justice v. Belo Broadcasting Corp., 472 F.Supp. 145, 146 (N.D.Tex.1979).

. See Phillips v. Smalley Maintenance Servs., Inc., 435 So.2d 705, 708 (Ala.1983); Godbehere v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., 162 Ariz. 335, 783 P.2d 781, 788 (1989); Florida Publishing Co. v. Fletcher, 340 So.2d 914, 918 (Fla.1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 930, 97 S.Ct. 2634, 53 L.Ed.2d 245 (1977); Peterson v. Idaho First Nat'l Bank, 83 Idaho 578, 367 P.2d 284, 287-88 (1961); Leopold v. Levin, 45 Ill.2d 434, 259 N.E.2d 250, 254-56 (1970); Douglas v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 769 F.2d 1128, 1133-34 (7th Cir.1985) (Illinois law), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1094, 106 S.Ct. 1489, 89 L.Ed.2d 892 (1986); Rinsley v. Frydman, 221 Kan. 297, 559 P.2d 334, 339 (Kan.1977); Estate of Berthiaume v. Pratt, 365 A.2d 792, 794-95 (Me.1976); Beaumont v. Brown, 401 Mich. 80, 257 N.W.2d 522 (1977); Dietz v. Wometco W. Mich. TV, 160 Mich.App. 367, 407 N.W.2d 649, 655-56 (Ct.1987); Young v. Jackson, 572 So.2d 378, 381-82 (Miss.1990) (stating that it has "recognized a right of action in at least three contexts: (1) ... false light [citing] Prescott v. Bay St. Louis Newspapers, Inc., 497 So.2d 77, 79 (Miss.1986)”); Hamberger v. Eastman, 106 N.H. 107, 206 A.2d 239, 240-241 (1964); Devlin v. Greiner, 147 N.J.Super. 446, 371 A.2d 380, 388-89 (1977); Montgomery Ward v. Larragoite, 81 N.M. 383, 467 P.2d 399, 401 (1970); Gruschus v. Curtis Publishing Co., 342 F.2d 775, 776 (10th Cir.1965) (New Mexico law); Tollefson v. Price, 247 Or. 398, 430 P.2d 990, 991-92 (1967); Bennett v. Norban, 396 Pa. 94, 151 A.2d 476, 477-79 (1959); Todd v. South Carolina Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 276 S.C. 284, 278 S.E.2d 607, 610 (1981); Montgomery Ward v. Shape, 286 N.W.2d 806, 808 (S.D.1979); Crump v. Beckley Newspapers, Inc., 173 W.Va. 699, 320 S.E.2d 70, 85 (1983); McCammon & Assocs., Inc. v. McGraw-Hill Broadcasting Co., Inc., 716 P.2d 490, 492 (Colo.Ct.App.1986); Thomason v. Times-Journal, Inc., 379 S.E.2d 551, 554 (Ga.Ct.App.1989, cert. denied); Cox Communications, Inc. v. Lowe, 173 Ga.App. 812, 328 S.E.2d 384, 386 (Ga.Ct.App., cert. denied), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 982, 106 S.Ct. 388, 88 L.Ed.2d 341 (1985); Pierson v. News Group Publications, Inc., 549 F.Supp. 635, 642 (S.D.Ga.1982); Tooley v. Canal Motors, Inc., 296 So.2d 453, 454-55 (La.Ct.App.1974); Rouly v. Enserch Corp., 835 F.2d 1127, 1132 (5th Cir.1988) (Louisiana law); Allen v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 76 Md.App. 642, 547 A.2d 1105, 1108 (Md.Ct.Spec.App.1988, cert. denied); Lawrence v. A.S. Abell Co., 299 Md. 697, 475 A.2d 448, 450-51 (Md.Ct.Spec.App. 1984); International Union v. Garner, 601 F.Supp. 187, 189 (M.D.Tenn.1985).
Several states have not decided whether the action will be viable. See Elm Medical Lab. v. RKO Gen., 403 Mass. 779, 532 N.E.2d 675, 681 (1989) (briefly noting that it has not recognized false light); Fox Tree v. Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc., 398 Mass. 845, 501 N.E.2d 519, 522 (Mass.1986) (putting off deciding whether to adopt the tort); Sullivan v. Pulitzer Broadcasting Co., 709 S.W.2d 475, 480-81 (Mo.1986) (not deciding whether to denominate the tort); Henry v. Taft T.V. & Radio Co., 774 S.W.2d 889, 891-92 (Mo.Ct.App.1989) (stating that the case lacked facts meeting the "invitation extended in [Sullivan] for recognition of the tort.... ”); Arrington v. New York Times, 55 N.Y.2d 433, 449 N.Y.S.2d 941, 945, 434 N.E.2d 1319, 1323 (1982) (stating that it did not reach the issue), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1146, 103 S.Ct. 787, 74 L.Ed.2d 994 (1983); Yeager v. Local Union 20, 6 Ohio St.3d 369, 371-74, 453 N.E.2d 666, 669-70 (Ohio 1983) (stating that the facts of the case did not incline it to adopt the tort); Eastwood v. Cascade Broadcasting Co., 106 Wash.2d 466, 722 P.2d 1295, 1299 (1986) (reserving the issue); compare Kapellas v. Kofman, 1 Cal.3d 20, 81 Cal.Rptr. 360, 369, 459 P.2d 912, 921 n. 16 (1969) (dismissing a false *586light claim that overlapped with defamation) with Fibreboard Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indent. Co., 16 Cal.App.4th 492, 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 376, 389-90 (Cal.Ct.App.1993) (including false light in the cluster of wrongs comprising invasions of the right to privacy under the common law). Although the court counts Virginia as a minority rule state, Virginia has not addressed the issue.

. The only other state supreme court to reject the tort of false light invasion of privacy in its entirety is North Carolina. See Renwick v. News & Observer Publishing Co., 310 N.C. 312, 312 S.E.2d 405, 410 (N.C.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 858, 105 S.Ct. 187, 83 L.Ed.2d 121 (1984). Not only has Renwick been criticized for "employ [ing] flawed logic” in its refusal to recognize the tort of false light invasion of privacy, Walter D. Fisher, Jr., Note, Renwick v. News & Observer Publishing Co.: North Carolina Rejects the False Light Invasion of Privacy Tort, 63 N.C.L.Rev. 767, 773-74 (1985), but the Renwick approach is one of casting doubt on the need for the right to privacy in general. See Renwick, 312 S.E.2d at 413 (speculating that the conditions which led Warren and Brandéis to argue almost a century ago for a separate tort of invasion of privacy have subsided). The court misplaces its reliance on the opinions of those who disagree with the principles expressed in Billings v. Atkinson — that there is a right to privacy warranting protection under the common law and that damages for mental suffering are recoverable without the need of showing other injury because the injury in a case of willful invasion of the right of privacy is essentially mental and subjective. Compare 489 S.W.2d 858, 860-61 (Tex.1973) with Harry Kalven, Jr., Privacy in Tort Law— Were Warren and Brandéis Wrong?, 31 L. & Con-temp.Probs. 326, 327 (1966) (stating that "tort law’s effort to protect the right of privacy seems to me a mistake”) and Diane Leenheer Zimmerman, False Light Invasion of Privacy: The Light that Failed, 64 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 364, 452 (1989) (concluding that false light could be retained if it requires proof of non-trivial harms — that is more than mental distress).

. The court wrongly suggests that innocuous and accidental errors may provide the basis for false light liability. See, e.g., Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652E & cmt. c (1977) (requiring that the false light be highly offensive to a reasonable person and stating that the tort applies only to major misrepresentations); see also Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374, 387-90, 87 S.Ct. 534, 541-43, 17 L.Ed.2d 456 (1967) (requiring actual malice, not accidental conduct, as a basis for false light). Nor should the tort's focus on offensive behavior and emotional harm prevent its recognition. Cf. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 (1965) (recognizing intentional infliction of emotional distress which requires extreme and outrageous conduct); Twyman v. Twyman, 855 S.W.2d 619, 622-23 (Tex.1993) (adopting intentional infliction of emotional distress as outlined in the Restatement and rejecting vagueness arguments because the law constantly requires jurors to decide what is reasonable).

. The court fails to define any societal benefit in deliberate falsehoods that cause harm. The benefit to such speech is unclear. Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374, 390, 87 S.Ct. 534, 543, 17 L.Ed.2d 456 (1967) (quoting Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 75, 85 S.Ct. 209, 216, 13 L.Ed.2d 125 (1964)); Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 572, 62 S.Ct. 766, 769, 86 L.Ed. 1031 (1942); Melville B. Nimmer, The Right to Speak from Times to Time: First Amendment Theory Applied to Libel and Misapplied to Privacy, 56 Cal.L.Rev. 935, 962 (1968) (arguing that knowing lies hardly contribute to democratic dialogue and are hard to regard as a necessary function of self-fulfillment); see also Gary T. Schwartz, Explaining and. Justifying A Limited Tort of False Light Invasion of Privacy, 41 Case W.Res.L.Rev. 885, 907 & 914-15 (1991) (describing the tort as a useful device for indirectly vindicating readers’ claims of misrepresentation against journals knowingly running false stories and explaining that false light suits improve market information by letting readers know of reason to doubt the accuracy of a story or a pattern of stories in a particular journal); cf. Richard A. Posner, Economic Analysis of Law 97 (3d ed. 1986) (arguing that the liar makes a positive investment in misinformation which is socially wasteful).
Furthermore, the court makes no effort to address the patent inconsistency in allowing suit for public disclosure of private facts as an invasion of privacy but not for disclosure of untrue facts. See Walter D. Fisher, Jr., Note, Renwick v. News & Observer Publishing Co.: North Carolina Rejects the False Light Invasion of Privacy Tort, 63 N.C.L.Rev. 767, 778 (1985) (noting that “it would be patently illogical to recognize a privacy action for public disclosure of private facts while refusing to recognize a false light claim” because it would lead to anomalous results). The court apparently puts a premium on falsehood in deciding that false light injuries will go unreme-died. See Melville B. Nimmer, The Right to Speak from Times to Time: First Amendment Theory Applied to Libel and Misapplied to Privacy, 56 Cal.L.Rev. 935, 963 (1968).

. The assumption that false light invasion of privacy enables plaintiffs to bypass defamation restrictions is largely incorrect. Gary T. Schwartz, Explaining and Justifying A Limited Tort of False Light Invasion of Privacy, 41 Case W.Res.L.Rev. 885, 890 (1991). As the court concedes, most jurisdictions balance privacy and free speech rights by enacting procedural safeguards. For example, substantial truth is a defense to false light invasion of privacy, defeating arguments that editors should have omitted or added certain facts to a story. Machleder v. Diaz, 801 F.2d 46, 53-55 (2d Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1088, 107 S.Ct. 1294, 94 L.Ed.2d 150 (1987); see also Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241, 258, 94 S.Ct. 2831, 2839-40, 41 L.Ed.2d 730 (1974); Goodrich v. Waterbury Republican-American, Inc., 188 Conn. 107, 448 A.2d 1317, 1331 (1982). And, of course, this court could address this concern by requiring that safeguards recognized in defamation cases also apply in false light invasion of privacy cases. See, e.g., Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 652F, 652G (1977) (dealing with privileges).

. The court correctly points out, and I wholeheartedly agree, that the Texas constitution has independent vitality from the federal constitution and that Texas affords its citizens broader free speech rights than the minimum federal guarantees of the First Amendment. See Davenport v. Garcia, 834 S.W.2d 4, 10-11 (Tex.1992, orig. proceeding). I believe that the actual malice standard comports with these broad guarantees in the context of providing a remedy for damaging and false speech. Rather than simply reject the false light branch of invasion of privacy, I would favor an approach balancing each of these important rights.