Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo

Last updated

Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Pat Tornillo
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 17, 1974
Decided June 25, 1974
Full case nameMiami Herald Publishing Company, Division of Knight Newspapers, Incorporated v. Tornillo
Citations418 U.S. 241 ( more )
94 S. Ct. 2831; 41 L. Ed. 2d 730; 1974 U.S. LEXIS 86; 1 Media L. Rep. 1898
Case history
PriorAppeal from the Supreme Court of Florida
Holding
A Florida law requiring newspapers to allow equal access to political candidates in the case of a political editorial or endorsement content is unconstitutional.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William O. Douglas  · William J. Brennan Jr.
Potter Stewart  · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall  · Harry Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell Jr.  · William Rehnquist
Case opinions
MajorityBurger, joined by unanimous
ConcurrenceBrennan, joined by Rehnquist
ConcurrenceWhite
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I

Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, [a] 418 U.S. 241 (1974), was a seminal First Amendment ruling by the United States Supreme Court. [2] The Supreme Court overturned a Florida state law that required newspapers to offer equal space to political candidates who wished to respond to election-related editorials or endorsements. The Supreme Court ruled that law was an unconstitutional restriction of freedom of the press under the First Amendment. [3]

Contents

Background

In 1972 Pat Tornillo, a candidate for an upcoming election to the Florida House of Representatives, found that the Miami Herald had criticized his candidacy and endorsed his opponent. Tornillo wrote some replies in which he accused the newspaper of defaming his character, and demanded that the newspaper offer him free space in which to print them. Such a request was permissible under a Florida right of reply statute for newspapers (Florida Statute § 104.38). [3]

The newspaper refused Tornillo's demands, so he sued in Florida court for violation of the state's right of reply statute. The Miami Herald responded that the statute was a violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, because it compelled newspapers to print content against their will. [3] After several local hearings, the case was sent to the Supreme Court of Florida, which ruled that the Florida statute was not a constitutional violation because, by offering media space to anyone regardless of their financial power or publishing abilities, it enhanced rather than restricted free speech. [4]

The Miami Herald requested a special appeal to the United States Supreme Court, because of questions related to the federal constitution, and the Supreme Court accepted the case per a federal law stating that a state supreme court's ruling on a federal question may not be the final word. [5]

Opinion of the court

The Supreme Court struck down the Florida right of reply statute for reasons of compelled speech, chilled speech, and the financial nature of the newspaper industry. The court held that the Florida statute violated the First Amendment by requiring newspapers to publish text against their will, while the statute may chill the press because "editors may conclude that the safe course is to avoid controversy." [3]

Furthermore, the Court held that unlike mass media broadcasting, in which a right of reply may be merited due to scarce frequencies, the newspaper industry suffered no such restrictions and a criticized person would have a relatively easier time finding a competing publication, or even starting a new publication of their own. [6]

Thus, the Supreme Court overturned the Florida right of reply statute as a violation of freedom of the press, "because of its intrusion into the function of editors" and its restrictions on "the exercise of editorial control and judgment." [3]

Impact

Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo has been widely cited as one of the most important Supreme Court rulings on freedom of the press, serving as a crucial precedent in later disputes over government attempts to control the activities of newspapers. [6] [7] However, this ruling is part of an inconsistent duo of cases, with the other being Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC (1969), in which the Supreme Court upheld different levels of government regulation for print media vs. broadcast media. [8] This has resulted in frequent criticism of the differing free speech protections for different types of mass media simply because of their delivery methods. [9] [10] [11]

Notes

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">First Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment limiting government restriction of civil rights

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prevents the government from making laws respecting an establishment of religion; prohibiting the free exercise of religion; or abridging the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the freedom of assembly, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights. In the original draft of the Bill of Rights, what is now the First Amendment occupied third place. The first two articles were not ratified by the states, so the article on disestablishment and free speech ended up being first.

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that the First Amendment protects students from being compelled to salute the American flag or say the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools.

Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that upheld the ability of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to regulate indecent content sent over the broadcast airwaves.

Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court under which prior restraint on publication was found to violate freedom of the press as protected under the First Amendment. This principle was applied to free speech generally in subsequent jurisprudence. The Court ruled that a Minnesota law that targeted publishers of "malicious" or "scandalous" newspapers violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Legal scholar and columnist Anthony Lewis called Near the Court's "first great press case".

<i>Miami Herald</i> American daily newspaper in Miami, Florida

The Miami Herald is an American daily newspaper owned by The McClatchy Company and headquartered in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Founded in 1903, it is the fifth-largest newspaper in Florida, serving Miami-Dade, Broward, and Monroe counties.

First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978), is a U.S. constitutional law case which defined the free speech right of corporations for the first time. The United States Supreme Court held that corporations have a First Amendment right to make contributions to ballot initiative campaigns. The ruling came in response to a Massachusetts law that prohibited corporate donations in ballot initiatives unless the corporation's interests were directly involved.

The right of reply or right of correction generally means the right to defend oneself against public criticism in the same venue where it was published. In some countries, such as Brazil, it is a legal or even constitutional right. In other countries, it is not a legal right as such, but a right which certain media outlets and publications choose to grant to people who have been severely criticised by them, as a matter of editorial policy.

Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946), was a case decided by the US Supreme Court, which ruled that a state trespassing statute could not be used to prevent the distribution of religious materials on a town's sidewalk even though the sidewalk was part of a privately-owned company town. The Court based its ruling on the provisions of the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment.

Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission, 395 U.S. 367 (1969), was a seminal First Amendment ruling at the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that radio broadcasters enjoyed free speech rights under the First Amendment, but those rights could be partially restricted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to maintain the public interest in equitable use of scarce broadcasting frequencies. As a result, the FCC's Fairness Doctrine was found to be constitutional.

Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC is the general title of two rulings of the United States Supreme Court on the constitutionality of must-carry regulations enforced by the Federal Communications Commission on cable television operators. In the first ruling, known colloquially as Turner I, 512 U.S. 622 (1994), the Supreme Court held that cable television companies were First Amendment speakers who enjoyed free speech rights when determining what channels and content to carry on their networks, but demurred on whether the must-carry rules at issue were restrictions of those rights. After a remand to a lower court for fact-finding on the economic effects of the then-recent Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act, the dispute returned to the Supreme Court. In Turner II, 520 U.S. 180 (1997), the Supreme Court held that must-carry rules for cable television companies were not restrictions of their free speech rights because the U.S. government had a compelling interest in enabling the distribution of media content from multiple sources and in preserving local television.

Jerome A. Barron is the Harold H. Greene Professor of Law at the George Washington University Law School and a former dean of the law school. He is primarily known for his influence about the doctrine of free speech in the United States.

Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U.S. 809 (1975), was a United States Supreme Court decision that established First Amendment protection for commercial speech. The ruling is an important precedent on challenges to government regulation of advertising, determining that such publications qualify as speech under the First Amendment.

Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1 (1945), was a ruling of the United States Supreme Court. concerning both antitrust law and freedom of the press. The ruling confirmed that anticompetitive behavior in the news industry should be subjected to a First Amendment analysis on the ability of the public to receive information from multiple sources.

United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460 (2010), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, which ruled that 18 U.S.C. § 48, a federal statute criminalizing the commercial production, sale, or possession of depictions of cruelty to animals, was an unconstitutional abridgment of the First Amendment right to freedom of speech.

McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that an Ohio statute prohibiting anonymous campaign literature is unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects the freedom of speech. In a 7–2 decision authored by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court found that the First Amendment protects the decision of an author to remain anonymous.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dan Paul</span> American lawyer (1924–2010)

Daniel Perkins Smith Paul was an American attorney best known for arguing the landmark case Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo before the Supreme Court of the United States. The decision established the principle that government could not force a newspaper to publish content.

Hurst v. Florida, 577 U.S. 92 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court, in an 8–1 ruling, applied the rule of Ring v. Arizona to the Florida capital sentencing scheme, holding that the Sixth Amendment requires a jury to find the aggravating factors necessary for imposing the death penalty. In Florida, under a 2013 statute, the jury made recommendations but the judge decided the facts.

Heffernan v. City of Paterson, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in 2016 concerning the First Amendment rights of public employees. By a 6–2 margin, the Court held that a public employee's constitutional rights might be violated when an employer, believing that the employee was engaging in what would be protected speech, disciplines them because of that belief, even if the employee did not exercise such a constitutional right.

Compelled speech is a transmission of expression required by law. A related legal concept is protected speech. Just as freedom of speech protects free expression, in many cases it similarly protects an individual from being required to utter or otherwise express a thought with which that individual disagrees.

Comcast Cablevision of Broward County, Inc. v. Broward County, Florida, 124 F.Supp.2d 685, was a ruling at the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida over the constitutionality of a local ordinance requiring an Internet service provider to share its physical network with competitors. The ruling is often cited as an important early precedent on the matter of network neutrality and the free speech rights of Internet service providers.

References

  1. ↑ Savage, Charlie (February 26, 2024). "Supreme Court Seems Open to Tech Companies' Challenge to Social Media Laws". The justices keep calling the landmark newspaper case 'Tor NEE yo.' As someone who covered the Miami teachers union chief Pat Tornillo early in my career, when I was the Miami Herald 's education beat reporter, I can attest that he pronounced his name 'Tor NIL lo.'
  2. ↑ Dennis Hevesi (February 2, 2010). "Dan Paul, 85, leading lawyer for press freedom". Boston Globe. Archived from the original on May 9, 2013. Retrieved April 24, 2013– via HighBeam Research.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 US 241 (1974).
  4. ↑ Tornillo v. Miami Herald Pub. Co., 287 So.2d 78 (Fla. Supreme Court, 1973).
  5. ↑ North Dakota Bd. of Pharmacy v. Snyder's Drug Stores, Inc., 414 US 156 (1973).
  6. 1 2 "Reaffiffirming the Freedom of the Press: Another Look at Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo". Michigan Law Review. 73 (1): 186–214. 1974. doi:10.2307/1287775. JSTOR   1287775.
  7. ↑ Fischman, Bruce D. (1975). "Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo: Editorial Discretion v. The Electorate's Right to Know - Freedom of the Press for Whom". Ohio Northern University Law Review. 2 (3): 562–569 – via HeinOnline.
  8. ↑ Lipsky Jr., Abbott B. (February 1976). "Reconciling Red Lion and Tornillo: A Consistent Theory of Media Regulation". Stanford Law Review. 28 (3): 563–588. doi:10.2307/1228307. JSTOR   1228307 – via HeinOnline.
  9. ↑ Emord, Jonathan W. (1992). "The First Amendment Invalidity of FCC Content Regulations". Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy. 6 (1): 93–216 – via HeinOnline.
  10. ↑ Soriano, Josephine (Spring 2006). "The Digital Transition and the First Amendment: Is It Time to Reevaluate Red Lion's Scarcity Rationale?". Boston University Public Interest Law Journal. 15 (2): 341–356 – via HeinOnline.
  11. ↑ Calvert, Clay (2022). "First Amendment Battles over-Anti-Deplatforming Statutes: Examining Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo's Relevance for Today's Online Social Media Platform Cases". New York University Law Review Online. 97: 1–17 – via HeinOnline.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.