MIAMI HERALD PUBLISHING CO v TORNILLO, 418 U.S. 241 (1974)

From Driscollwiki

MIAMI HERALD PUBLISHING CO v TORNILLO, 418 U.S. 241 (1974)

• SCOTUS
• 418 U.S. 241
• June 25, 1974

Contents 1 Who wrote it? 2 Takeaways 3 Facts 4 Legally important facts 4.1 Newspaper is more than a passive conduit: Editorial 5 Prior procedural posture 6 Issue to be decided 7 Law that applies 8 Court's holding 9 Dissent/joining opinion

Who wrote it?

• Justice Burger
  • Brennan filed concurring statement (joined by Rehnquist)
  • White filed a concurring statement

Takeaways

• Sullivan (1964): "commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open"
• AP (326 U.S. at 20 n. 18): "does not compel AP or its membrs to permit publication of anything which their 'reason' tells them should not be published"

Facts

• Tornillo was Exec Dir of a teachers' collective-bargaining agent, candidate for Florida House of Rep
• Miami Herald printed critical editorials on Sept 20+29 of 1972
• Tornillo demanded that the Herald print his responses verbatim, Herald refused

Legally important facts

• Herald maintains that the Florida Statute is void because
  • State regulation of editorial content
  • Vague
  • No distinction between protected criticism and defamation
• Newspaper ecology is substantially different in 1974 as compared with 1791
  • Fewer, larger outlets
  • Media consolidation, integration
  • "Entry into the marketplace of ideas is nearly impossible"
  • Triggers need for "access" rights
• Press responsibility is not mandated by Congress [though it is a desirable goal]"

Newspaper is more than a passive conduit: Editorial

• Yet to be demonstrated how gov't regultaion ... can be exercised consistend with First Amendment"

Prior procedural posture

• Tornillo sues in Florida Circuit Court seeking injunctive and declaratory relief and damages
  • Circuit Court determined that the "right of reply"/Fairness statute was unconstitutional, abridging 1st
• Supreme Court of Florida, No. 73-797, who reversed
  • Civil remedies + damages were available
• SCOTUS reverses, decides that the statute is unconstitutional (free press)

Issue to be decided

• Whether a state statute granting a political candidate a right to equal space to reply to criticism and attacks on his record by a newspaper violates the guarantees of a free press

Law that applies

• Florida Statute 104.38 (1973), "right to reply"
  • First enacted, 1913
  • This is only the 2nd case that has involved it

Court's holding

• SCOTUS reverses Supreme Court of Florida
• The statute violates the First Amendment
  • Gov't compulsion on a newspaper to publish that which "reason" tells it should not be published is unconstitutional
  • Statute operates as a "command" by the State, censorship
  • Statute exacts a content-dependent penalty
  • Statute interferes with editors at the newspapers

Dissent/joining opinion