The Desperate Hours (film) - Background

Background

Actual events occurring in 1952 inspired a 1953 novel which in turn inspired the 1954 play that the movie was based on. Around 1955 the family (the Hills, formerly of Whitemarsh PA) sued Time, Inc., because Life magazine published that year an article about the play, describing it as based on the actual events, and illustrated by staged photos with actors in the actual home that was the scene of the events, the Hills having moved away, making efforts to discourage publicity. The Hills' complaint was that the article falsely described the actual events while claiming it represented the truth. Right after the event Mr. Hill had told the press the family had not been molested or harmed, and in fact had been treated courteously. The Life magazine article, however, stated that some family members had been assaulted, profanity used, and in other ways, according to a New York appellate court, differed from the account Hill had given. Suing in a New York court, the plaintiffs relied on a New York statute which permitted damages suits for violation of the right of privacy only in instances of use of a person's name or picture for commercial purposes without consent. The statute, however, had been interpreted by the New York courts to make the truth of the publication a defense. The defense for Time, Inc., was that the matter was of general interest and the article had been published in good faith. A jury awarded compensatory and punitive damages, but the state appellate court awarded a new trial at which only compensatory damages could be considered, while sustaining liability. This order was affirmed by the highest state court.

Time, Inc., appealed the case to the United States Supreme Court, which ruled that the First Amendment prohibited holding the publisher liable unless the article was known by it to be false, or at least was published with disregard as to its truth or falsity (i.e., recklessly). The jury had not been so instructed, so the judgment could not stand. This ruling was a significant expansion of press protection, for a (qualified) immunity from damages was being extended to publishing matter about people who were newsworthy only by accident, as opposed to, for example, government officials. To this point the relevant cases had only dealt with such so-called "public figures" who were suing publishers. Mr. Hill was represented in the High Court by Richard M. Nixon, at that time an attorney in private practice. The Supreme Court thus made it extremely difficult even for ordinarily private persons to prevail in a defamation or "false light" invasion of privacy case. From the Supreme Court the case was sent back to the New York courts for disposition under this newly announced constitutional standard, probably involving a new trial, or perhaps summary judgment rendered on the basis of affidavits and depositions.