On December 15, 1956 Marvin Briscoe and another man hijacked a truck in Daniville, Kentucky. They were caught and convicted, and Briscoe served a term in prison. After release from prison, Briscoe established a life respectability. In 1976, Reader's Digest published an article entitled "The Big Business of Hijaking:, stating that the looting of trucks had reached a rate of more that $100 million per year. Without indicating that the Briscoe hijacking had occurred 11 years earlier, the article contained the following sentence: "Typical of many beginners, Marvin Briscoe and another man stole a 'valuable-looking' truck in Danville, KY., and then fought a gun battle with police, only to learn that they had hijacked four bowling pin spotters". After publication of the article, Briscoe brought an action for damages against readers Digest Association, Inc., for the intentional tort of invasion of privacy. The complaint alleged that as a result of the Reader's Digest publication, the plaintiff's 11 year old daughter, as well as the plaintiff's friends, learned of his criminal record for the first time and thereafter scorned and abandoned him. Did Briscoe's complaint state a cause of action for invasion of the right to privacy?
Marvin Briscoe, invasion of privacy, first amendment

Please use the IRAC formula to explain the answer. Issue, Rule, Application, and Conclusion.