## Facts

- A nationally broadcast television program aired in January 1989 addressing pregnancies resulting from rape and incest.
- Miriam Booher appeared and recounted that her former husband raped her daughter when the daughter was about eleven, resulting in pregnancy and birth of a boy.
- Booher and her then-husband adopted the child, who was the daughter’s biological son.
- Booher identified herself by name on the broadcast but did not identify her daughter, former husband, or the child by name.
- The family events had not been reported to authorities and had not previously been publicly disclosed.
- The daughter had instructed Booher not to appear or disclose the family history; Booher spoke anyway.
- The plaintiffs did not contest the truth of the disclosed events but alleged that the broadcast publicly exposed private facts and effectively revealed the daughter’s and child’s identities.

## Issues

1. Whether a televised account of true, highly personal family events can support liability for public disclosure of private facts when the plaintiff is not named but may be identifiable.
2. Whether the First Amendment bars a public-disclosure-of-private-facts claim where the speaker recounts her own life story on a subject of legitimate public concern.
3. Whether summary judgment was proper for the speaker and the media defendants who broadcast the statements.

## Decision

- The court affirmed summary judgment for Booher, the show host, and associated production defendants.
- Assuming the plaintiffs’ factual assertions were true and viewing the evidence in the nonmovants’ favor, the court held the challenged speech was protected by the First Amendment.
- The court concluded Booher had a constitutional right to tell her personal story, even though it included private facts about others involved in that story.
- Because the broadcast concerned matters of legitimate public concern (including rape, incest, pregnancy, and adoption), constitutional protections foreclosed tort liability on the asserted privacy theory.

## Legal Principles

- Public disclosure of private facts generally requires: (1) publicity of matters concerning a plaintiff’s private life, (2) that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (3) not of legitimate concern to the public.
- On summary judgment, courts consider evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant and accept reasonable inferences supporting the nonmovant.
- The First Amendment can bar liability for otherwise actionable private-facts disclosures when the speech addresses matters of legitimate public concern.
- A person’s right to recount her own life experiences receives First Amendment protection even when that account necessarily includes private facts about others connected to those experiences.
- When the underlying speech is constitutionally protected, media defendants who broadcast it are not liable under a public-disclosure-of-private-facts theory for airing the protected content.

## Conclusion

The court held that the First Amendment protected a guest’s televised account of her family’s experience with rape, incest, and adoption as part of her own life story on a matter of public concern, and it affirmed summary judgment rejecting the plaintiffs’ public-disclosure-of-private-facts claim against both the speaker and the broadcasters.


Anonsen v. Donahue, 857 S.W.2d 700 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1993)