This document summarizes a legal case regarding Sony Pictures' emails being hacked and published online. It discusses whether Sony or the media outlets that published the emails should be found at fault. While celebrities have a lesser right to privacy due to working in the public eye, Sony employees' personal information like social security numbers were also leaked. The document concludes that neither Sony nor the media should be at fault, as the hackers who stole and leaked the information are responsible.

1. BAY STATE COLLEGE
The Sony Email Hacking
Who is at fault?
Deborah Chan Studebaker
Law 140B
Essay #1
January 24, 2015
Is Sony really to blame for their emails being published?

2. Deborah Chan Studebaker
The Sony Email Hacking
In this paper I will be exploring a legal case involving the right to privacy. This right to
be left alone was inferred but never stated in the US Constitution. There is a level of expectation
to this right that varies depending on where your privacy has been invaded. A person’s privacy
can be invaded in four ways. One way is the intrusion upon someone’s seclusion into their own
affairs. Another way would be through the public disclosures of any embarrassing private facts
about a person. A third way involves publicity that portrays a person falsely in the public eye.
Privacy can also be invaded by appropriation for a person’s advantage of another person’s name,
likeness, or a person’s right to publicity.
Some people have a lesser right to privacy than others. Celebrities, athletes, and
politicians. This is because they choose to be in the public eye when they make entertainment,
play sports, or campaign. In a case from 2011, a radio station broadcasted an illegally intercepted
phone call about teacher salaries. It was written, by Justice John Paul Stevens, that broadcasting
these issues of public concern was protected by the First Amendment. This poses the question of
whether or not the hacked Sony emails are of “public concern” (Johnson, 2014).
Many media outlets received letters this past December from David Boies, attorney for
Sony Pictures Entertainment, in regards to destroying or ignoring all the hacked documents and
emails from the studio’s hacking attack. Although these emails and documents may have been
wrongfully obtained, it will be tough to blame the media for publishing this information they
receive. UCLA School of Law professor, Eugene Volokh, finds that the media has more freedom
in this case since it involves a major corporation. He also mentions that Boies didn’t specify
what the is considered a “public concern” (Johnson, 2014).

3. Deborah Chan Studebaker
Volokh is also the author of the Volokh Conspiracy Blog for the Washington
Post. The day after the media received Boies’ letter, Volokh writes in his blog that while
the hacked Sony documents and emails “are likely to be seen as of public concern”, it can
be argued “that they aren’t of great public concern.” He goes on to say that “Sony is a
very big important business” and that what Sony Pictures Entertainment does is
significant not only economically, but also culturally (Volokh, 2014). Volokh does also
point out that as a result of Sony being economically and culturally significant, their
communications as business people can be seen as a matter of public concern. This
includes emails about Angelina Jolie. Not only is she a celebrity, but she is also a
businesswoman who has a significant impact culturally (Johnson, 2014). Volokh also
mentions in his blog that some of what was leaked from the hack may lead to a lawsuit
but that is only a small portion of the material. That lawsuit can’t be brought by Sony but
only by the people whose private information had been published (Volokh, 2014).
An article from the Washington Post talked about how sony was preparing reveal
a high profile project to produce a biopic movie honoring Apple founder, Steve Jobs,
until the project was lost to a rival of Sony’s. Some of these hacked emails released
showed a fight between one of Sony’s top executives and a powerful movie producer.
This movie producer at some point in the email called Angelina Jolie a “minimally
talented spoiled brat” (Kang, Timberg, & Nakashima, 2014). There is also a separate
email between Sony Pictures co-chair, Amy Pascal, and the producer who brought this
Steve Jobs project to the studio, Scott Rudin. In this email, they write about an upcoming
fundraiser for our United States President, Barack Obama. The content of these emails
consisted of the two of them guessing what African American movies and actors the

4. Deborah Chan Studebaker
president might like. Pascal writes in one “should I ask him if he liked DJANGO?” She
goes on to write “or the butler. Or think like a man? [sic].” Rudin then responds with
“Ride-along. I bet he likes Kevin Hart” (Kang, Timberg, & Nakashima, 2014).
Sony’s legal case is supported by a previous case from the year 1969. In this case,
articles were published from documents stolen from the office of the senator at that time,
Thomas Dodd. Dodd filed a lawsuit with claims to invasion of privacy and the use of
stolen property. The court decided to side with the media and reject Dodd’s claim
(Johnson, 2014). Volokh also wrote in his blog about this case. He mentions that as a
matter of public concern, the court deemed that, just because it was illegally leaked
doesn’t mean that publishing it will be an invasion of privacy.
Aside from all this gossip about their failed projects and of movie stars, there was
also Sony employee information leaked from health information to Social Security
numbers and other personal information. The Washington Post points out that the most
harm done would be to Sony’s reputation (Kang, Timberg, & Nakashima, 2014). When it
comes to some of the emails leaked, it could be argued that they fall outside of public
concern. Pascal and Rudin’s emails about Obama’s movie habits can be included as
outside of public concern. On the point of the emails including the Sony employees’
personal information, the media could be held liable for publishing them even though that
information is not of any interest to them (Johnson, 2014).
I believe that, in the instance of the emails involving all the celebrity gossip, the
media outlets are not at fault if they publish them. As I mentioned in the second
paragraph, celebrities have less of a right to privacy. Their job is to make movies or
music for our entertainment. For the most part, they choose to be in that spotlight and to

5. Deborah Chan Studebaker
be the center of attention. It is their job to be in the spotlight. When it comes to the emails
that include the personal information of Sony employees’, as long as the media outlets do
not publish them, they are not at fault. A good portion of these Sony employees’ work in
an office of some sort most likely, therefore, they did not choose to give up their right to
privacy like the celebrities did. Although there is more to it than just that. Health
information, Social Security numbers, pay information, and personal data are all
protected. This is all information that ties to someone’s identity. This information may
not be embarrassing but it still is private. My Decision on this entire case is that neither
Sony nor the media should be at fault. The fault lies on the hackers that leaked all this
information. Sony could have protected everything better but it still does not mean they
should be at fault.

6. Deborah Chan Studebaker
Works Cited
Johnson,T.(2014, December15). The Legal Case for PublishingSonyEmails. Variety.(T.Johnson,Ed.)
Los Angeles,CA,USA:Variety.RetrievedJanuary24,2015, from Variety:
http://www.variety.com
Kang,C., Timberg,C.,& Nakashima,E.(2014, December11).Sony'shackede-mailsexposespats,
directorcallingAngelinaJolie a'brat'. (M. Baron,Ed.) The Washington Post.RetrievedJanuary
24, 2015, fromhttp://www.washingtonpost.com
Volokh,E.(2014, December15).Can Sonysue mediaoutletswhopublishthe stolenSonydocuments?
(M. Baron, Ed.) The Washington Post.RetrievedJanuary24,2015, from
http://www.washingtonpost.com