Idaho appeals court: Newspaper has right to report on scandal

By The Associated Press

08.03.00

Printer-friendly page

BOISE, Idaho — The Idaho Court of Appeals yesterday ruled that the First Amendment shielded The Idaho Statesman from any liability for publishing part of a 40-year-old court file saying, perhaps falsely, that a Boise man had a homosexual affair with his cousin.

Citing a 1975 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, the three appellate judges agreed that restricting the right of the media to publish documents contained in a public court file would result in self-censorship that would deny the public information it needs to continually assess the operations of its government agencies.

The ruling threw out the invasion of privacy claim filed by Fred Uranga over the Statesman's 1995 publication of a photograph of a handwritten statement that included allegations that he had an affair with his cousin. The statement was written by one of the men eventually convicted in the 1955 Boys of Boise homosexuality scandal.

The picture accompanied an article recounting what the newspaper called one of the nation's "most infamous homosexual witch hunts." The Statesman focused on the impact the episode had on one of those involved — a man who committed suicide several years after the allegations surfaced. 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.

Claiming the information in the statement was false and had never been introduced in any proceeding as evidence, Uranga demanded a correction. The Statesman declined, offering instead to either publish Uranga's rebuttal or explain his position along with a statement that the newspaper had no opinion on the truth of the court document.

Uranga declined and sued.

In his lawsuit, Uranga contended that the document was not public, claiming it was never used in a public proceeding and that even if it was public its use should not be publishable because it was untrue and ancient history.

But the appellate court rejected his contentions.

Judge Karen Lansing, writing for the unanimous court, said that as long as it was in the court file the document was a public document that the media could publish under the protection of the First Amendment. She said it was up to government, not the media, to make sure documents in court files belong there.

Lansing also held that requiring the media to verify the veracity of information in court files would be onerous and that the mere passage of time did not preclude media use of a court file document.

"We are not without sympathy for Uranga's position," Lansing wrote. "A price has been visited upon him for The Statesman's exercise of its First Amendment rights."

But to accept Uranga's rationale, she said, "would result in the sort of self-censorship by the press that (the U.S. Supreme Court) sought to prevent."

Update

Idaho high court reinstates man's lawsuit against newspaper
Lower court had found First Amendment shielded the Statesman when the paper published 1955 court document tying man to homosexuality scandal.  06.22.01