“May a private plaintiff recover damages from, or obtain an injunction against, a defendant that openly publishes truthful information about the plaintiff, when the defendant has wrongfully acquired that information? The recent cases that have addressed this question have primarily answered it in the negative, citing the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech and, with respect to the question of injunctive relief, its general prohibition against prior restraints of publication.”

but his view is that:

“Where true information is obtained illegally– whether by trespass, fraud, or breach of confidence or contract–the presumption should [be] that both damages and injunctive relief are made available to the party with the right to keep that information confidential.”

Suppose, however, this were a motion picture, and a member of the media video-blogged parts of the content of the film — from inside the theater. Does the theater have the right to eject the blogger? Does the theater have the right to condition media access to the film on an agreement not to blog from inside the theater?

My intuition is that the common answer to the second set of questions is “yes,” for a couple of reasons, and that “speech” considerations are or should be unavailing. One, the content of the film is typically treated as an “entertainment” event rather than a newsworthy “event” characterized by “facts,” and two, video-blogging the film clearly threatens some cognizable market for the film.

Why is a film “entertainment” and a baseball game “news”?