## Facts

- In 1984, the biological mother of three children was murdered by the children’s biological father; the crime and resulting prosecution received substantial publicity, and the father was convicted and imprisoned for life.
- After the father’s arrest, the children lived with relatives for over a year and were later adopted by John Roe and his wife, who lived in another area of Alabama.
- The children moved to their adoptive parents’ home shortly before the criminal trial and received counseling intended to help them live normal lives.
- Jane Doe wrote and self-published a novel dramatizing the murder; she printed approximately 1,000 copies to distribute herself after commercial publishers declined the project.
- Roe alleged the novel used the biological parents’ real first names and included false and misleading statements that would portray the children in a false light, invading their privacy and causing emotional harm.
- Roe, as father and next friend of the minor children, sought to prevent distribution by filing an action for injunctive relief.

## Issues

1. Whether a permanent injunction prohibiting distribution of a novel to prevent anticipated invasion of privacy and emotional injury to minors constitutes an unconstitutional prior restraint under Article I, § 4 of the Alabama Constitution.
2. Whether the asserted privacy and “false light” harms were shown with sufficient certainty and gravity to justify suppressing speech before publication rather than leaving the parties to post-publication remedies.

## Decision

- The Alabama Supreme Court reversed the permanent injunction and remanded.
- The Court held the order was a prior restraint on speech barred by Article I, § 4 of the Alabama Constitution absent an extraordinary showing.
- The Court concluded Roe did not establish, by clear and convincing evidence, irreparable harm sufficient to justify enjoining publication.
- The Court emphasized the underlying events were already widely publicized and matters of public record, reducing the basis for suppressing publication in advance.
- The Court noted that alleged privacy or false-light injuries, if actionable, are ordinarily addressed through post-publication damages rather than a ban on distribution.

## Legal Principles

- A judicial order prohibiting speech before publication is a prior restraint and is subject to the most demanding scrutiny under Alabama’s constitutional protection for expression.
- Injunctive suppression of publication is an extraordinary remedy that requires a clear and convincing showing of imminent, irreparable harm that cannot be adequately addressed by other means.
- Claims sounding in invasion of privacy or false light generally do not justify enjoining speech in advance when post-publication tort remedies remain available.
- The public and newsworthy character of underlying events, including extensive prior publicity and matters of public record, weighs strongly against pre-publication suppression.

## Conclusion

The Alabama Supreme Court held that enjoining distribution of a novel based on a widely publicized murder, to prevent anticipated privacy and emotional harms to minor children, was an unconstitutional prior restraint because the required clear and convincing showing of irreparable harm was not made and post-publication remedies remained available.


Doe v. Roe, 638 So. 2d 826 (Ala. 1994)