reasonably be expected to cause a reasonable man to take serious offense. Id. “The elements to be proven are publicity, given to private facts, which would be highly offensive to a reasonable person and which are not of legitimate concern to the public.” Id. ¶ 16 This cause of action must fail. Importantly, this is a matter of legitimate concern to the general public. The remarks in question were only made after it was announced that the Philadelphia School District had a deficit of $150 million. It cannot be gainsaid that the general public has an interest in and a right to know about their public school system. Accordingly, the court correctly granted summary judgment on the false light cause of action. See Neish v. Beaver Newspapers, Inc., 398 Pa.Super. 588, 581 A.2d 619 (1990) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 17 The Rushes argue that, even though the
holding that several articles critical of a borough solicitors performance as solicitor did not support a cause of action under false light  invasion of privacy as the publications although containing statements which might be viewed as annoying or embarrassing were not highly offensive to a reasonable person holding that an attorney who made false representations to a court did not violate okla rpc 33 because that rule addresses professional misconduct as an advocate for making false statements to a tribunal not false statements by a lawyer as a witness holding that new york law has no common law right of privacy embracmg such claims as false light as any such privacy right is purely statutory holding as a matter of law that the plaintiff could not recover for libel to his person  for the reason that the articles referred to no person who could possibly be identified as him recognizing falselight invasion of privacy