## Facts

- Edith Rapp, a Jewish woman, was the stepmother of Bruce Rapp, an employee of Jews for Jesus, Inc., a Christian evangelistic organization.
- After visiting his ill father in Florida, Bruce wrote a narrative for the organization’s newsletter describing interactions with Edith.
- The publication stated or implied that Edith prayed with Bruce and had accepted Jesus, conveying a conversion from Judaism to Christianity.
- The newsletter was distributed by Jews for Jesus, including online, and was read by some of Edith’s relatives.
- Edith alleged the portrayal was false, offensive, and harmful, and she sued for false light invasion of privacy, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- The trial court dismissed all claims with prejudice, largely on First Amendment grounds.
- The district court affirmed dismissal of defamation under a “common mind” defamatory-meaning standard, reversed dismissal of false light, and certified to the Florida Supreme Court whether Florida recognizes false light and, if so, whether Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652E supplies its elements.

## Issues

1. Whether Florida recognizes the tort of false light invasion of privacy, and whether its elements are those stated in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652E.
2. Whether Florida recognizes defamation by implication as a cause of action.
3. What standard governs whether a statement is defamatory, including whether reputational harm to a “substantial and respectable minority of the community” is sufficient.

## Decision

- The Florida Supreme Court answered the certified question in the negative and declined to recognize false light invasion of privacy.
- The Court held false light substantially overlaps with existing tort remedies but lacks comparable First Amendment protections, creating unacceptable risks to freedom of expression.
- The Court recognized defamation by implication in Florida, allowing liability where statements are presented so as to convey a false and defamatory meaning.
- The Court adopted the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 559 comment e standard that a publication may be defamatory if it prejudices the plaintiff in the eyes of a “substantial and respectable minority of the community.”
- The Court quashed the dismissal of the defamation claim and remanded for reconsideration under the clarified defamation doctrines and standard.

## Legal Principles

- Florida does not recognize a standalone tort of false light invasion of privacy; plaintiffs must rely on other established torts for publication-based reputational harms.
- False light is disfavored where it is duplicative of defamation and could permit end-runs around constitutional and common-law safeguards developed in defamation doctrine.
- Florida recognizes defamation by implication, including where a publication’s omissions, juxtaposition, or presentation creates a false and defamatory impression even if individual statements are literally true.
- A statement can be defamatory if it harms reputation in the eyes of a “substantial and respectable minority of the community,” not only if it would be defamatory to the community at large.
- Courts assessing defamatory meaning must apply these standards before dismissing publication-based reputation claims at the pleading stage.

## Conclusion

Florida rejected false light invasion of privacy to avoid duplicative liability lacking established free-speech safeguards, while strengthening defamation law by recognizing defamation by implication and by allowing defamatory meaning to be shown through prejudice within a substantial and respectable minority of the community; the defamation claim was remanded for reconsideration under these rules.


Jews for Jesus, Inc. v. Rapp, 997 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 2008)