It comes down to right to privacy vs. freedom of the press, they say. And their answer could take a while.
Ludmilla Lelis |Sentinel Staff Writer
- September 26, 2007
DAYTONA BEACH - A panel of appellate judges on Tuesday probed the deeper question surrounding about 80 boxes of documents formerly owned by Doug Guetzloe that became television news fodder.
The 5th District Court of Appeal distilled the lawsuit between political consultant Guetzloe and WKMG-Channel 6 down to a conflict between the right to privacy and the freedom of the press.
“Would you agree a judge shouldn’t step into an editor’s shoes unless there is a compelling reason to do so?” District Judge Kerry Evander asked of Guetzloe’s attorney, Frederic O’Neal, who responded that the private nature of some of the documents offers such a reason.
The TV station has appealed a court injunction that had limited what Channel 6’s Tony Pipitone could broadcast from Guetzloe’s documents, which had been stored in a rental unit, sold at auction and given to Pipitone last year.
Orange Circuit Judge Rom Powell originally barred the station from airing any reports using the documents, then changed the injunction to limit the release of information from medical records and communications with attorneys.
On Tuesday, three judges of the district court questioned whether that limit should stand, or if allowing the release could mean that private information, such as medical information, could be broadcast or published.
“Broadcasters and the press come into contact with private information every day and decide if it’s newsworthy,” said WKMG attorney Jack Kirschenbaum. A news organization could face damages for defamation or invasion of privacy, he said.
Kirschenbaum said there is no evidence the station wants to broadcast medical information. But the decision on such material should lie with an editor and not with a judge, he said.
District Judge Richard Orfinger said the legal precedents upholding press freedom have dealt with issues of public significance, and not private medical records or documents that are protected under attorney-client privilege.
Still, he questioned whether freedom of the press does trump the other issues. “Why would the statutory attorney-client privilege outweigh a constitutional right? Why would the statutory right to privacy outweigh the constitutional right of the press?” Orfinger asked.
The district court’s answer could take several weeks, or months.
Ludmilla Lelis can be reached at 386-253-0964 or llelis@orlandosentinel.com.