Yesterday a Florida state appellate court decided Rapp v. Jews for Jesus, Inc., (FL 4th Dist. Ct. App., Nov. 29, 2006). In the case, plaintiff Edith Rapp, a traditional Jew, claimed that Jews for Jesus (JFJ) falsely portrayed her in an online newsletter as a convert to the group's beliefs. The article was written by Rapp's stepson who is a member an employee of JFJ. The appellate court's decision rejected the trial court's holding that the the First Amendment barred it from deciding plaintiff's tort claims. According to the appeals court, the publication of false statements about a non-member of a religious group does not implicate a tenet of religious belief. Nevertheless, the court found that Rapp's complaint did not allege facts that would support either a defamation claim or a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. However, the court reversed the trial judge's dismissal of Rapp's "false light invasion of privacy" claim-- a tort that involves a major misrepresentation of a person’s character, history, activities or beliefs.
The court of appeals invited review by the state Supreme Court of whether Florida recognizes a claim for false light invasion of privacy, and, if it does, whether it would follow the Restatement (Second) of Torts in defining the elements of the claim. It did so by certifying this question as one of "great public importance", thereby giving discretionary jurisdiction for review to the Supreme Court pursuant to Fla. Rules Appellate Procedure , Rule 9.030.
The court of appeals also upheld the trial court's decision to strike numerous paragraphs in Rapp's complaint, describing the paragraphs as redundant and bellicose descriptions of Rapp's theological animosity toward JFJ. [Thanks to Brian D. Wassom for the lead.]
