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

• 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)

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; 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
Chief Justice: Warren E. Burger Associate Justices: William O. Douglas, William J. Brennan, Potter Stewart, Byron White, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, Lewis Franklin Powell, Jr., William Rehnquist
Case opinions
Majority by: Burger Joined by: unanimous Concurrence by: Brennan Joined by: Rehnquist Concurrence by: 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 access to political candidates in the case of a political editorial or endorsement content. In effect, it 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. It represents the medium with the most Constitutional protection, while Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC represents the medium with the least protection: broadcast TV and radio.

See also

• List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 418

External links

• Text of the decision
• First Amendment Library entry on Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)