Roshto v. Hebert
9 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2417, 439 So. 2d 428 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The publication of a truthful, non-malicious, and accurate account of a past criminal conviction obtained from public records does not constitute an actionable invasion of privacy when published inadvertently as part of a regular historical feature of general public interest, as more than mere insensitivity or carelessness is required to impose liability.
Facts:
- In 1952, brothers Carlysle, Alfred, and E.R. Roshto were convicted of cattle theft and sentenced to prison, events which were reported at the time in The Iberville South newspaper.
- After serving their sentences, the Roshto brothers became law-abiding citizens in their community and eventually received full pardons for their convictions.
- The Iberville South, run by Gary and Joyce Hebert, had a regular feature called 'Page from Our Past' which reprinted the front page of a randomly selected 25-year-old edition.
- In 1973, the newspaper reprinted a 1952 front page containing an article about the Roshtos' trial.
- In 1977, the newspaper again reprinted a 1952 front page, this time one detailing the Roshto brothers' prison sentences, publishing their names in the process.
- The 1977 reprint was an inadvertent part of the regular feature; there was no attempt to highlight the Roshtos' past or connect it to their current lives, and the editor testified he did not know them personally.
Procedural Posture:
- The Roshto brothers sued Gary and Joyce Hebert, d/b/a The Iberville South, in Louisiana district court (trial court) for invasion of privacy based on the 1977 publication.
- At trial, the plaintiffs admitted the truth of the published article.
- The trial judge entered judgment for the defendants, ruling that truth was an absolute defense.
- The plaintiffs (as appellants) appealed to the Louisiana Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that truth is not an absolute defense to an invasion of privacy claim, and awarded each plaintiff $35,000 in damages.
- The defendants (as applicants) sought and were granted certiorari by the Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a newspaper's inadvertent, non-malicious publication of a truthful, 25-year-old article about a pardoned criminal conviction, as part of a regular historical feature, constitute an actionable invasion of privacy?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Lemmon
No. A newspaper's inadvertent, non-malicious publication of a truthful, 25-year-old article about a pardoned criminal conviction, as part of a regular historical feature, does not constitute an actionable invasion of privacy. While the passage of time is a factor to consider, it does not by itself convert a public matter into a private one. The court distinguished this case from situations involving intentional, malicious exposure of a reformed individual's past. Here, key factors weighed against liability: the publication was inadvertent and not targeted, it was part of a regular historical feature of legitimate public interest, the information was part of the local public record, and there was no evidence of malice. While arguably insensitive, the publication did not rise to the level of an actionable tort because more than simple carelessness is required for liability when the information is truthful, accurate, and non-malicious.
Concurring - Justice Calogero
I concur with the majority's conclusion that the plaintiffs have not proven an actionable invasion of privacy. To be actionable, the defendant's conduct must not only be non-malicious but also injurious, highly offensive to a reasonable person, reckless in its disregard for its offensiveness, and lack any independent justification. The plaintiffs in this case failed to meet this standard, and therefore the newspaper should not be held liable.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the boundaries of the 'public disclosure of private facts' tort, particularly when it conflicts with First Amendment protections for publishing truthful information from public records. It establishes that the passage of time alone does not strip a public record of its newsworthiness or make its publication an invasion of privacy. The decision emphasizes the publisher's intent and the manner of publication, suggesting liability is more likely in cases of malicious, targeted exposure rather than inadvertent, historical reporting. This holding provides significant protection for media outlets publishing historical content from their archives.
Unlock the full brief for Roshto v. Hebert