Briscoe v. Reader's Digest Association, Inc.

Supreme Court of California · 1971 · Torts

Tortsprivacypublic disclosurerehabilitationpassage of timeprivacypublic disclosure of private factsnewsworthiness

Facts

Plaintiff alleged that in 1956 he hijacked a truck in Kentucky, but immediately afterward abandoned that life, became entirely rehabilitated, and for the next 11 years lived an exemplary and respectable life. Defendant later published an article about truck hijacking that described plaintiff by name as one of the hijackers, without indicating that the incident had occurred in 1956. Plaintiff alleged that his daughter and friends then learned of the incident for the first time, scorned and abandoned him, and that publication of his name publicized truthful but embarrassing facts from his past. Plaintiff conceded the subject of hijacking was newsworthy but contended the use of his name was not.

Issue

Does a complaint state a cause of action for invasion of privacy when a magazine truthfully identifies a rehabilitated private person as the perpetrator of a long-past crime, even though the underlying subject of the article is newsworthy? More specifically, can a jury find that the identification of such a person is not newsworthy and is highly offensive notwithstanding First Amendment protections for truthful reporting?

Rule

Truthful publication is constitutionally protected if it is newsworthy and does not reveal facts so offensive as to shock the community's notions of decency. In determining newsworthiness, courts consider the social value of the facts published, the depth of the intrusion into ostensibly private affairs, and the extent to which the party voluntarily acceded to public notoriety. In this setting, a plaintiff must prove that the publisher invaded privacy with reckless disregard for the fact that reasonable people would find the invasion highly offensive; where a former offender has reverted to a lawful and unexciting life, identification in connection with a long-past crime may lack independent public justification.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

A monthly magazine in Phoenix publishes a feature on cargo theft trends. It accurately describes a 14-year-old warehouse burglary and names Daniel Moreno as one of the burglars, although Daniel alleges he completed his sentence long ago, has lived quietly in Mesa ever since, and the article gave no reason for singling him out by name.

If Daniel sues for public disclosure of private facts, which is the strongest argument that his complaint should survive a demurrer?

Explanation. The majority drew a distinction between reporting the facts of past crimes, which may remain newsworthy, and identifying the actor in a long-past crime, which usually serves little independent public purpose once proceedings have ended and the person has returned to a lawful, obscure life. That is why a complaint can state a claim at the pleading stage. The court did not adopt a fixed time limit, automatic liability, or a consent requirement.