Ah yes, the constitutional right is quite strong there - but it did
go to appeal.
Clearly a grey area (rather than black :)).
The fact that he objected to the story may have had some power.
It would have been a little more difficult here with implied rather
than stated constitutional rights to free expression.
We have the right by convention which may seem shaky to you guys -
but you're a lot less likely to get shot for your views here so I
guess it balances out.
Andrew Fildes
afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 11/11/2007, at 9:57 AM, Bob Whitmire wrote:
> Andrew and I both were wrong about the black guy on the cover the NYT
> Magazine. Quoted paragraph, last one on the first page:
>
> "Also cited was a 1982 ruling in which the New York Court of Appeals
> sided with The New York Times in a suit brought by Clarence
> Arrington, whose photograph, taken without his knowledge while he was
> walking in the Wall Street area, appeared on the cover of The New
> York Times Magazine in 1978 to illustrate an article titled "The
> Black Middle Class: Making It." Mr. Arrington said the picture was
> published without his consent to represent a story he didn't agree
> with. The New York Court of Appeals held that The Times's First
> Amendment rights trumped Mr. Arrington's privacy rights."
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|