## Facts

- A married couple in South Carolina consisted of a 12-year-old wife and a 20-year-old husband.
- The wife gave birth to a healthy son at a Columbia hospital.
- An Associated Press story was published describing the wife as a “chubby, blonde 12-year-old mother” and reporting that she declined photographs and did not want publicity.
- The story also reported nonintimate details about the hospital setting (e.g., a private room) and that the baby was healthy.
- The couple alleged the publication was made maliciously, against their wishes, and was disseminated widely, causing humiliation, mental anguish, and unwanted public attention.
- Each spouse filed a separate action for invasion of privacy; the trial court sustained demurrers and dismissed both actions.

## Issues

1. Whether the complaints stated a claim for invasion of privacy based on publication of truthful facts about the plaintiffs.
2. Whether a news organization may be liable for publishing a substantially accurate, nondefamatory human-interest story of legitimate public interest despite the subject’s objection to publicity.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of South Carolina affirmed the dismissal of both actions.
- Assuming a right of privacy exists under state law, the court held no cause of action lies for publication of matters of legitimate public interest when the account is substantially accurate, nondefamatory, and not presented in an excessively offensive or morbid manner.
- The article’s content, tone, and level of detail were not sufficiently indecent, outrageous, or sensational to support liability.

## Legal Principles

- The privacy interest is generally framed as the right to be let alone and free from unwarranted publicity.
- The privacy tort is limited by a “newsworthiness” or “legitimate public interest” exception for truthful reporting of events that reasonably attract public attention.
- A publisher is not required to withhold truthful, nondefamatory facts of public interest merely because the subject prefers secrecy.
- Liability for publication requires more than embarrassment; the publication must exceed ordinary standards of decency (e.g., by including morbid, lurid, or revolting details).
- Privacy protection is measured by ordinary sensibilities, not by hypersensitivity.

## Conclusion

The court held that truthful, nondefamatory reporting of an unusual birth involving a minor was a matter of legitimate public interest and, because the story was not presented in an offensively sensational manner, it did not constitute an actionable invasion of privacy even though the plaintiffs objected to publicity.


Meetze v. Associated Press, 230 S.C. 330, 95 S.E.2d 606 (S.C. 1956)