Originally Posted by RedBloodedAmerican
Sorry, but I don't think he was discreet by going to a gay bar. It's a small world.
Restatement (Second) of Torts Section 652D (1976):
One who gives publicity to a matter concerning the private life of another is subject to liability to the other for invasion of privacy, if the matter publicized is of a kind that (a) would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (b) is not of legitimate concern to the public.
Is Mr. Hernandez's sexual orientation a matter of legitimate concern to the public? No way. Would the reasonable person in Mr. Hernandez's shoes find the disclosure of his sexual orientation to be highly offensive? I'd say so, given what we know about him. (Note that this does not mean that the reasonable person finds homosexuality to be offensive, it means that a reasonable person doesn't want their sexual proclivities discussed on the airwaves.)
If we let violations of privacy like this go, we might be setting up some serious problems. For example, what if a shock jock went on the air and named private citizens he knew had abortions? Or who were HIV-positive? Or who participated in 'deviant' sexual practices? I suspect you would find this to be highly offensive.
Cincinnati_chili made the point about the legal distinction between a public figure and a private citizen. It's important to note that Mr. Hernandez did not hold himself out in the public sphere, his orientation was no one's business, and was certainly not a matter of public concern. Now, if Rick Santorum was the plaintiff at issue, I'd say you have a point--he holds himself out as some sort of farcical 'moral crusader' and has made his infantile views on homosexuality clear. But in this case, the DJ's action was just beyond the pale.