"法學英文：Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469; 95 S. Ct. 1029 (1975)."

"侵權行為法整編（第867條）肯認隱私受侵害者得提出隱私侵害訴訟以請求損害賠償。侵權行為法整編第2版第13號修正草案（第652A條至第652E條）將侵害隱私的侵權行為分成四種態樣；關於媒體做出不必要公開揭露私人生活的不當行為，第652D條評注說明：「如果被告只是進一步公開揭露有關原告已經公開的資訊，被告無需承擔侵權責任，因此媒體報導屬於公共紀錄事項中有關原告生活的事實，無需承擔侵權責任。」對於「實際或其他有形方式侵入私人領域」的另一種侵權行為態樣，亦是如此。第652B條評注C說明：「檢視關於原告的公共紀錄或文件，或是檢視原告被要求保存以供公眾查閱的文件，無需承擔侵權責任。」根據侵權行為法整編第2版第13號修正草案，查明和公開公共紀錄的內容根本就不屬於「公開揭露個人資訊」或是「實際或其他有形方式侵入私人領域」這兩種侵權行為態樣的範圍。The Restatement of Torts, § 867, embraced an action for privacy. Tentative Draft No. 13 of the Second Restatement of Torts, §§ 652A-652E, divides the privacy tort into four branches; and with respect to the wrong of giving unwanted publicity about private life, the commentary to § 652D states: 'There is no liability when the defendant merely gives further publicity to information about the plaintiff which is already public. Thus there is no liability for giving publicity to facts about the plaintiff's life which are matters of public record.' The same is true of the separate tort of physically or otherwise intruding upon the seclusion or private affairs of another. Section 652B, Comment c, provides that 'there is no liability for the examination of a public record concerning the plaintiff, or of documents which the plaintiff is required to keep and make available for public inspection.' According to this draft, ascertaining and publishing the contents of public records are simply not within the reach of these kinds of privacy actions."