## Facts

- In September 1975, Oliver W. Sipple intervened in San Francisco to stop Sara Jane Moore’s attempted assassination of President Gerald Ford, becoming a nationally publicized “hero.”
- A newspaper column about the incident reported that Sipple was associated with the San Francisco gay community and political activities.
- Other newspapers repeated similar descriptions of Sipple, sometimes linking the disclosure to commentary about stereotypes regarding gay people and speculation about the President’s response to Sipple.
- Sipple alleged the publications revealed his homosexuality to family members from whom he had concealed it, causing humiliation, emotional distress, and family estrangement.
- The media defendants presented evidence that Sipple’s sexual orientation was already widely known to many people in San Francisco and other cities, that he frequented gay bars, and that his name had appeared in gay community publications and political contexts.
- Sipple maintained he retained a privacy interest because he had not disclosed his orientation to his parents and certain family members.

## Issues

1. Whether publication of Sipple’s homosexuality could support liability for public disclosure of private facts where the information was already widely known in relevant communities.
2. Whether, even if the information were private, the disclosure was protected as newsworthy because it related to a matter of legitimate public concern arising from Sipple’s widely reported conduct and related public debate.
3. Whether summary judgment was proper in light of First Amendment interests implicated by the claims.

## Decision

- The court affirmed summary judgment for the defendants.
- The court held the disclosure did not concern “private” facts because Sipple’s homosexuality was already known to many people and had been discussed in community publications.
- The court alternatively held that the disclosure was newsworthy and of legitimate public interest in connection with a major public event and related discussion about stereotypes and potential discrimination.
- The court concluded the publications were not the sort of prurient or sensational intrusion that can defeat the newsworthiness privilege.
- The court approved resolving the case on summary judgment to avoid unnecessary burdens on speech and press activity where the material facts were undisputed.

## Legal Principles

- Public disclosure of private facts requires publication of genuinely private information; information already generally known cannot be transformed into a “private fact” merely because it is unknown to some family members.
- Speech on matters of legitimate public concern is protected; truthful reporting may include personal facts when they bear a reasonable relationship to the newsworthy topic.
- The newsworthiness privilege is not unlimited; liability may remain where publication constitutes morbid or sensational prying that would be highly offensive and contrary to commonly accepted standards of decency.
- Summary judgment is appropriate where the record shows no triable issue on the “private fact” element or where constitutional protections independently bar liability.

## Conclusion

The court rejected Sipple’s privacy claim because the record showed his sexual orientation was not private in the relevant sense and, in any event, its publication in reporting and commentary tied to a nationally significant event was newsworthy and protected from tort liability.


Sipple v. Chronicle Publ'g Co., 154 Cal. App. 3d 1040 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984)