> I am not sure why you are bringing up the state. It makes no sense in any context of what we are talking about.
Because this thread was about whether this creates a tort or not, that’s why mentioning the state is relevant. I’m genuinely confused why you’re confused by this.
This thread is not about a tort. The article doesn't mention it (to my recollection) and your post didn't either. Can you clarify why you think it does?
> Yes, it may be illegal, in civil court. It's the tort of "public disclosure of private facts". Under California law, the public disclosure of private facts is defined as (1) a public disclosure of (2) private facts about an individual (3) that would offend the average person, that (4) was not of legitimate public concern; and (5) where defendant published private facts with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity
It’s right there at the top. I’m actually kind of alarmed that you can’t see that.
Because this thread was about whether this creates a tort or not, that’s why mentioning the state is relevant. I’m genuinely confused why you’re confused by this.