Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo
Oxford Companion to the US Supreme Court:
Top
Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo
418 U.S. 241 (1974), argued 17 Apr. 1974, decided 25 June 1974 by vote of 9 to 0; Burger for the Court, Brennan, Rehnquist, and White concurring. In this case, the Supreme Court took up the issue of whether a Florida statute that granted a political candidate the right to equal space to reply to newspaper attacks on his personal character or official record violated the First Amendment guarantee of a free press.
In 1972, the Miami Herald had twice printed editorials critical of Pat Tornillo, a local teachers' union leader and candidate for the state house of representatives. In response to the newspaper's criticism and in accordance with Florida's 1913 “right to reply” statute, Tornillo demanded that the Herald print verbatim his replies to the negative editorials. When the newspaper refused to comply, Tornillo filed suit. After a circuit court declared the statute unconstitutional, the Florida Supreme Court, in Tornillo v. Miami Herald Publishing Company (1973), reversed the decision on appeal, upholding the right to reply law as furthering the “broad societal interest in the free flow of information to the public” (p. 82).
On appeal to the Supreme Court, the justices reversed the judgment of the state court by holding that the statute was a clear violation of the First Amendment guarantee of a free press. “The choice of material to go into a newspaper, and the decisions made as to limitations on the size and content of the paper,” wrote Chief Justice Warren Burger, “and treatment of public issues and public officials—whether fair or unfair—constitute the exercise of editorial control and judgment” (p. 258). Government regulation of this crucial process, the Court believed, violated the constitutional guarantees of a free press. In striking down the law, the Court applied precedents that rejected government‐enforced access to newspapers beginning with Associated Press v. United States (1945) but overlooked past decisions that upheld “right of reply” regulations in news broadcasting, particularly the Court's opinion in *Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission (1969).
See also Libel; Reply, Right of; Speech and the Press.
— Timothy S. Huebner
Oxford Guide to the US Government:
Top
Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo
• 418 U.S. 241 (1974)
• Vote: 9–0
• For the Court: Burger
• Concurring: Brennan, Rehnquist, and White
In September 1972, the Miami Herald printed editorials that were highly critical of Pat Tornillo, a candidate for the Florida House of Representatives. The editorials faulted Tornillo's judgment and character and advised voters not to support him.
Tornillo demanded that the Miami Herald print his response to its critical editorials. When the newspaper's publisher refused, Tornillo pointed to a 1913 Florida law that provided that “if a candidate for nomination in election is assailed regarding his personal character or official record by any newspaper, the candidate has a right to demand that the newspaper print … any reply the candidate may make to the newspaper's charges.”
The Miami Herald's publisher continued to ignore Tornillo's request, so Tornillo filed suit, asking that the Florida “right to reply” law be enforced in his behalf.
The Florida Supreme Court upheld the “right to reply” law as furthering the “broad societal interest in the free flow of information to the public.” The Miami Herald appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Issue
The 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says, “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” The 1st Amendment freedoms of speech and press have been applied by the Court to the states through the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. Did the Florida “right to reply” law violate the Miami Herald's constitutional right to freedom of the press?
Opinion of the Court
The Court reversed the Florida Supreme Court judgment and declared the “right to reply” law unconstitutional. Chief Justice Warren Burger concluded that the 1913 Florida statute was a clear violation of the 1st Amendment guarantee of a free press. Burger wrote, “The choice of material to go into a newspaper, and the decisions made as to… treatment of public issues and public officials–whether fair or unfair–constitute the exercise of editorial control and judgment.”
Significance
This case established that the government cannot force a newspaper publisher to print and distribute particular information. However, the Court has upheld government “right to reply” regulations with regard to news broadcasting, as in Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission (1969). That is because the broadcast media, unlike print media, have a limited number of frequencies or channels available, so the only way to provide for access to different points of view is a “right to reply” regulation that can be imposed by the Federal Communications Commission.
See also Freedom of speech and press; Incorporation doctrine
Sources
- Lucas A. Powe, Jr., American Broadcasting and the First Amendment (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987)
Wikipedia on Answers.com:
Top
Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo
| Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Pat Tornillo | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 Supreme Court of the United States |
||||||
| Argued April 17, 1974 Decided June 25, 1974 |
||||||
| Full case name | Miami Herald Publishing Company, Division of Knight Newspapers, Incorporated v. Tornillo | |||||
| Citations | 418 U.S. 241 (more) 94 S. Ct. 2831; 41 L. Ed. 2d 730; 1974 U.S. LEXIS 86; 1 Media L. Rep. 1898 |
|||||
| Prior history | Appeal from the Supreme Court of Florida | |||||
| Holding | ||||||
| The Court overturned a Florida state law requiring newspapers to allow equal access to political candidates in the case of a political editorial or endorsement content. | ||||||
| Court membership | ||||||
|
||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||
| Majority | Burger, joined by unanimous | |||||
| Concurrence | Brennan, joined by Rehnquist | |||||
| Concurrence | White | |||||
| Laws applied | ||||||
| U.S. Const. amend. I | ||||||
Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974), was a United States Supreme Court case that overturned a Florida state law requiring newspapers to allow equal space in their newspapers to political candidates in the case of a political editorial or endorsement content. The court held that while the statute does not "prevent [newspapers] from saying anything [they] wish" it "exacts a penalty on the basis of the content." Because newspapers are economically finite enterprises, "editors may conclude that the safe course is to avoid controversy," thereby chilling speech. Furthermore, the Court held the exercise of editorial judgment is a protected First Amendment activity. In effect, this ruling reaffirmed the constitutional principle of freedom of the press (detailed in the First Amendment) and prevented state governments from controlling the content of the press. This case illustrates the medium with the most Constitutional protection: newspapers, while Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC represents the medium with the least protection: broadcast, television, and radio.[citation needed]
See also
- Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 418
- Fairness doctrine
- Right of reply
External links
- Text of Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974) is available from: Justia · Findlaw
|
This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)
Post a question - any question - to the WikiAnswers community:
Copyrights:
Oxford Companion to the US Supreme Court
The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. Copyright © 1992, 2005 by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.
Read more
Oxford Guide to the US Government
The Oxford Guide to the United States Government. Copyright © 1993, 1994, 1998, 2001, 2002 by John J. Patrick, Richard M. Pious, Donald M. Ritchie. All rights reserved.
Read more
