 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
MELVIN ALEXANDER PRESCOTT v. BAY ST. LOUIS NEWSPAPERS10/15/1986
two actions are similar. For example, essential to both a false light privacy claim and a defamation claim is a determination that "the matter published concerning the plaintiff is not true." Restatement (Second) of Torts 652E comment a, at 395. Thus, in a false light privacy action, as in a defamation action, truth is an absolute defense.
700 F.2d at 1307. We recently took the same position in a defamation context. Fulton v. Mississippi Publishers Corp., No. 55,895, decided 9-17-86 (not yet reported). In Fulton we stated:
The threshold question is whether the statement made was defamatory. See Ferguson v. Watkins, 448 So.2d 271, 275 (Miss. 1984); Gulf Publishing Co., Inc. v. Lee, 434 So.2d 687, 694 (Miss. 1983), for if the statement was not defamatory, little else matters. In the procedural life of a defamation suit, the court determines whether the statement bears the meaning ascribed to it by the plaintiff and whether this meaning is defamatory. Manasco v. Walley, 216 Miss. 614, 630, 63 So.2d 91, 96 (1953); Brewer v. Memphis Publishing Co., Inc. 626 F.2d 1238, 1245 (5th Cir. 1980); Restatement (Second), Torts 614 (1977). If the court decides against the plaintiff on either of these questions, the case is ended. Restatement (Second), Torts 614 (1977).
Slip op. at 3.
We might substitute the word "false" for the word "defamatory" in the preceding passage to resolve this appeal. Like defamation, truth is a defense to false light. Miss. Const. art. III, 13 (1890), and if the statement is not false, little else matters.
We are aware that truthful statements may yet leave a false impression. The context itself may create a false impression. See Brown v. Flynt, 726 F.2d 245 (5th Cir. 1984) (accurate photograph of entertainer's act with a "diving pig" published without consent in men's magazine on the same page with overtly sexual material). A false impression may be created by the omission of pertinent facts. See Memphis Publishing Co. v. Nichols, 569 S.W.2d 412 (Tenn. 1978) (inference that shooting victim was engaged in adulterous affair because the story omitted the fact that the shooting occurred during a social gathering).
However, to again borrow from our decision in Fulton, we think that The words used must have been clearly directed at the plaintiff (and) the [false light] must be clear and unmistakeable from the words themselves and not the product of innuendo, speculation or conjecture.
Slip op. at 4 (citing Ferguson v. Watkins, 448 So.2d 271, 275 (Miss. 1984). To state it another way, though false light may occur from the context, this "does not relieve a plaintiff from identifying particular statements or passages that are false and invade his privacy." Rinsley v. Brandt 700 F.2d at 1310. It is clear Prescott can not meet this burden and therefore his suit fails.
Prescott admits he was arrested and charged in connection with the traffic accident as the story states. He admits he pled guilty to the driving under the influence charge leveled against him in Waveland - the very offense the reporting of which he contends placed him in a false light. He does not seriously question the accuracy of the pictures, though no doubt he considers the publicity excessive. Prescott can only rely on innuendo, speculation or conjecture to make out his case and this is not enough.
Far from being placed in a "false light," Prescott was portrayed in the "true light," unfortunately for him, of being a man arrested for two drunk driving violations
within a short period of time. The fact that either one or both of these alleged violations would not have been published had not Prescott been i
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Mississippi DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|