Sipple v. Chronicle Publishing Co.
201 Cal. Rptr. 665, 154 Cal. App. 3d 1040 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The publication of truthful but sensitive information about an individual is not an actionable invasion of privacy if the information is newsworthy or was already in the public domain. An individual who becomes an involuntary public figure is subject to legitimate public interest, and the press is constitutionally privileged to report on facts about them that are of public concern.
Facts:
- On September 22, 1975, Sara Jane Moore attempted to assassinate President Gerald R. Ford in San Francisco.
- Oliver W. Sipple, an ex-Marine, was in the crowd and deflected Moore's arm as she was about to fire her gun, potentially saving the President's life.
- Sipple's heroic act made him the subject of national media attention.
- On September 24, 1975, the San Francisco Chronicle published a column that identified Sipple and mentioned his association with prominent figures in the local gay community, such as Harvey Milk.
- Prior to the publication, Sipple was openly gay within his community, frequented gay establishments, participated in gay rights parades, and had been mentioned in gay community publications.
- Sipple's family, who lived outside of San Francisco, learned of his sexual orientation for the first time from the newspaper articles.
- Other newspapers, such as the Los Angeles Times, republished the information and speculated that the White House's delay in formally thanking Sipple was due to his homosexuality.
Procedural Posture:
- Oliver W. Sipple sued the Chronicle Publishing Company, the Times Mirror Company, and their staff in a California trial court for invasion of privacy.
- The trial court initially denied the defendants' motions for summary judgment.
- After the parties conducted discovery, the defendants renewed their motion for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted the defendants' renewed motion for summary judgment and entered a judgment dismissing the action.
- Sipple, as the appellant, appealed the summary judgment to the Court of Appeals of California.
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 the publication of a person's sexual orientation constitute a tortious invasion of privacy when that person has become an involuntary public figure, the fact was already widely known in their community, and the publication relates to a matter of legitimate public concern?
Opinions:
Majority - Caldecott, P.J.
No. The publication of Sipple's sexual orientation was not a tortious invasion of privacy because the information was not private and was newsworthy. First, a crucial element of the tort is the disclosure of private facts, but Sipple's sexual orientation was already in the public domain. He was open about his identity within the gay community, participated in public events, and was known to hundreds of people in various cities, meaning the newspaper articles merely gave further publicity to information he had already left open to the public eye. Second, the publication was constitutionally protected because it was newsworthy. Sipple became an involuntary public figure through his heroic act, making his life a matter of legitimate public interest. The reporting was not a 'morbid and sensational prying' but served a legitimate public concern: it dispelled stereotypes about gay men and raised a political question about whether the President was discriminating against Sipple, a national hero.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the broad constitutional privilege afforded to the press under the First Amendment when reporting on newsworthy events. It establishes that a fact is not legally 'private' if it is already known to a substantial number of people in the individual's community, even if it is not known to their family or the public at large. Furthermore, the decision broadens the definition of 'newsworthiness' to include the social and political implications of an event, such as challenging stereotypes or questioning the conduct of public officials, thereby protecting reporting that goes beyond the bare facts of the event itself.
