Idaho high court reinstates man's lawsuit against newspaper
By The Associated Press
06.22.01
BOISE, Idaho — A Boise man may continue with his invasion-of-privacy lawsuit against The Idaho Statesman for publishing a 1955 court document tying him to a homosexuality scandal, the Idaho Supreme Court ruled yesterday.
The newspaper contended it had absolute constitutional protection in the case because the documents were public, but the court disagreed.
The five-judge panel said the ruling did not compromise the press's ability to fully cover criminal trials. The judges said the issue in this case was the newspaper's publication of materials only tangentially related to the more than 40-year-old case file, and never proven.
The ruling reverses an August 2000 decision by the Idaho Court of Appeals that the First Amendment shielded the Statesman.
The invasion-of-privacy claim was filed by Fred Uranga, who sued after the newspaper's 1995 publication of a story recounting the 1955 Boys of Boise homosexuality scandal.
A photograph of a handwritten statement was included along with the story. The statement, written by Melvin Dir, said Dir had an affair with two men — including Uranga, his cousin.
Uranga's name did not appear in the story that accompanied the photo. The statement was never entered as evidence in the case, and Uranga was never charged.
The article recounted what the newspaper called one of the nation's "most infamous homosexual witch hunts." The newspaper focused on the impact the episode had on the other man with whom Dir was alleged to have had an affair. That man committed suicide within several years of the allegations surfacing.
The newspaper published the material in the midst of a debate over a proposed ballot initiative on homosexual rights, calling the scandal a cautionary tale.
Yesterday's ruling sends the case back to district court, where Uranga can proceed with his claims.
Carolyn Washburn, executive editor at the Statesman, said the decision has implications far beyond the Idaho newspaper.
"Who's going to decide, case by case, what is tangential and what's not? That becomes a serious judgment call," Washburn said. "This is information that is in the public domain because it's in a public document. ... I think it has implications not just for our access but for the public's access to public records."