Appellant
The Miami Herald Publishing Company, Division of Knight Newspapers, Inc.
Appellee
Pat L. Tornillo, Jr.
Appellant's Claim
That the Miami Herald did not have to print Tornillo's response to critical editorials published by the paper during his campaign for public office.
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
Daniel P. S. Paul
Chief Lawyer for Appellee
Jerome A. Barron
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Warren E. Burger (writing for theCourt), William O. Douglas, Thurgood Marshall, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., WilliamH. Rehnquist, Potter Stewart, Byron R. White
Justices Dissenting
None
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
25 June 1974
Decision
The Miami Herald did not have to print Tornillo's rebuttal.
Significance
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Miami Herald's First Amendment freedom of the press rights would be violated if they wereforced to print Tornillo's response.
Prior to becoming a candidate for Florida's House of Representatives in 1972,Pat Tornillo was the Executive Director of the Classroom Teacher's Association. On 20 and 29 September 1972, The Miami Herald published two editorials criticizing Tornillo's record as director of the association. Specifically, the paper took issue with a teacher's strike spearheaded by Tornillo in 1968. The first editorial about the strike reprinted in the Court transcriptssaid in part:
According to Florida Statute 104.38, known as right to reply, the Miami Herald was required to provide Tornillo with equal space in the paper to rebut the criticisms. The editors refused, and Tornillo filed a suit against the Miami Herald seeking damages of more than $5,000. The Florida Circuit Court ruled that the right to reply statute violated the First Amendment guarantee to free press because it dictated what newspaper editors must print.Further, the decision stated that even if the right to reply was found constitutional, Tornillo would not be eligible for damages. The Florida Supreme Court reversed on appeal, finding the right to reply compatible with the FirstAmendment. The state supreme court however, upheld Tornillo's ineligibility for damages.
Appeal Goes to the U.S. Supreme Court
The Miami Herald appealed the Florida Supreme Court's reversal beforethe U.S. Supreme Court on 17 April 1974. Led by chief defense lawyer Jerome A. Barron, the paper argued that the right to reply statute was indeed unconstitutional according to the First Amendment. Attorney Daniel P. S. Paul arguedthat a strict interpretation of the First Amendment prevented the private individual from responding to press criticism. Whereas the press was easily accessible in 1791 when the amendment was ratified, the trend toward media monopolies in the modern age prohibits common people from participating in publicdebate. This is mostly due to "economic factors which have . . . made entry into the marketplace of ideas served by the print media almost impossible," the trial transcripts stated. Therefore Paul argued, governmental intervention,such as the right to reply statute, is necessary to ensure a wider debate.
The Miami Herald's counsel embraced Tornillo's argument regarding theneed for wider debate as ammunition for their own case. Upholding the right to reply statute, they reasoned, would constrict rather than broaden debate onpublic issues as newspapers would shy away from controversial topics. In effect, reluctance to critically analyze issues, especially regarding politics and candidates for public office, would overshadow editorial judgment. Moreover, if the government were permitted to enforce the right to reply statute, aprecedent would be set for intervening in other editorial decisions. This intervention, the Miami Herald pointed out, is exactly what the First Amendment was designed to protect against.
In a unanimous decision written by Chief Justice Burger, the Supreme Court found Florida's right to reply statute unconstitutional according to the FirstAmendment. In his opinion Justice Burger cited Associated Press v. UnitedStates (1945) as the first case which addressed government's reluctance to interfere in the affairs of a newspaper. He quoted that forcing a newspaperto print something that "`reason' tells them should not be published" violated free press guarantees. Furthermore, telling the Miami Herald what it must print is no different from telling them what not to print. Coupled with this argument was the point that enforcing the right to reply statute wouldincur printing costs and limit column space, effectively preventing the editors from printing other items that they may deem more important. In conclusion, Justice Burger wrote:
Although the U.S. Supreme Court decided the right to reply statute was unconstitutional, this does not prohibit public officials from contesting personalattacks printed by a newspaper. The print media is still beholden to libel laws that prevent them from publishing unsubstantiated, slanderous reports. However, Justice White expressed concern in his concurring opinion that provinglibel was becoming increasingly difficult. Indeed, in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. which was announced the exact day of the Miami Herald Publishing Company v. Tornillo decision, the Court disabled most of the protection afforded by the individual against libel. White warned that this was a dangerous development in a world where the power of the media monopoly remains unchecked.
Related Cases
"Free Press" Refers to Press Only
The First Amendment guarantees "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom . . . of the press." While freedom of the press prohibits Congressfrom imposing restrictions upon the press, it does not guarantee anyone and everyone a forum for his or her opinions. The assurance does not provide for unfettered access by anyone wishing to editorialize. Newspapers were seen as avital tool of democratic action by the framers of the Constitution. The intention was to prohibit the government from limiting the press in its power ofeditorial decision making.
At least one state has attempted to infringe upon newspapers' editorial decision making with a statute referred to as a "Right of Reply" law. The U.S. Supreme Court has struck down such statutes as unconstitutional because these type of regulations would allow the government to dictate what must be printedin the newspaper. In order to sustain a free press, the newspapers, not the government, nor the public, must maintain authority over decisions of editorial content, and not be forced to publish opinions that they would otherwise reject.
Sources
Flite. http://www.law.vill.edu/Fed-Ct/Supreme/Flite/opinions/418US241.htm.
Cornell. http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/.
Grilliot, Harold J. and Frank A. Schubert. Introduction to Law and the Legal System. Fifth edition. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1992.
The Miami Herald Publishing Company, Division of Knight Newspapers, Inc.
Appellee
Pat L. Tornillo, Jr.
Appellant's Claim
That the Miami Herald did not have to print Tornillo's response to critical editorials published by the paper during his campaign for public office.
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
Daniel P. S. Paul
Chief Lawyer for Appellee
Jerome A. Barron
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Warren E. Burger (writing for theCourt), William O. Douglas, Thurgood Marshall, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., WilliamH. Rehnquist, Potter Stewart, Byron R. White
Justices Dissenting
None
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
25 June 1974
Decision
The Miami Herald did not have to print Tornillo's rebuttal.
Significance
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Miami Herald's First Amendment freedom of the press rights would be violated if they wereforced to print Tornillo's response.
Prior to becoming a candidate for Florida's House of Representatives in 1972,Pat Tornillo was the Executive Director of the Classroom Teacher's Association. On 20 and 29 September 1972, The Miami Herald published two editorials criticizing Tornillo's record as director of the association. Specifically, the paper took issue with a teacher's strike spearheaded by Tornillo in 1968. The first editorial about the strike reprinted in the Court transcriptssaid in part:
Call it whatever you will, it was an illegal act against the public interest and clearly prohibited by the statutes. We cannot say it would be illegal but certainly it would be inexcusable of the voters ifthey sent Pat Tornillo to . . . the House of Representatives.
According to Florida Statute 104.38, known as right to reply, the Miami Herald was required to provide Tornillo with equal space in the paper to rebut the criticisms. The editors refused, and Tornillo filed a suit against the Miami Herald seeking damages of more than $5,000. The Florida Circuit Court ruled that the right to reply statute violated the First Amendment guarantee to free press because it dictated what newspaper editors must print.Further, the decision stated that even if the right to reply was found constitutional, Tornillo would not be eligible for damages. The Florida Supreme Court reversed on appeal, finding the right to reply compatible with the FirstAmendment. The state supreme court however, upheld Tornillo's ineligibility for damages.
Appeal Goes to the U.S. Supreme Court
The Miami Herald appealed the Florida Supreme Court's reversal beforethe U.S. Supreme Court on 17 April 1974. Led by chief defense lawyer Jerome A. Barron, the paper argued that the right to reply statute was indeed unconstitutional according to the First Amendment. Attorney Daniel P. S. Paul arguedthat a strict interpretation of the First Amendment prevented the private individual from responding to press criticism. Whereas the press was easily accessible in 1791 when the amendment was ratified, the trend toward media monopolies in the modern age prohibits common people from participating in publicdebate. This is mostly due to "economic factors which have . . . made entry into the marketplace of ideas served by the print media almost impossible," the trial transcripts stated. Therefore Paul argued, governmental intervention,such as the right to reply statute, is necessary to ensure a wider debate.
The Miami Herald's counsel embraced Tornillo's argument regarding theneed for wider debate as ammunition for their own case. Upholding the right to reply statute, they reasoned, would constrict rather than broaden debate onpublic issues as newspapers would shy away from controversial topics. In effect, reluctance to critically analyze issues, especially regarding politics and candidates for public office, would overshadow editorial judgment. Moreover, if the government were permitted to enforce the right to reply statute, aprecedent would be set for intervening in other editorial decisions. This intervention, the Miami Herald pointed out, is exactly what the First Amendment was designed to protect against.
In a unanimous decision written by Chief Justice Burger, the Supreme Court found Florida's right to reply statute unconstitutional according to the FirstAmendment. In his opinion Justice Burger cited Associated Press v. UnitedStates (1945) as the first case which addressed government's reluctance to interfere in the affairs of a newspaper. He quoted that forcing a newspaperto print something that "`reason' tells them should not be published" violated free press guarantees. Furthermore, telling the Miami Herald what it must print is no different from telling them what not to print. Coupled with this argument was the point that enforcing the right to reply statute wouldincur printing costs and limit column space, effectively preventing the editors from printing other items that they may deem more important. In conclusion, Justice Burger wrote:
A newspaper is more than a passive receptacle or conduit for news, comment, and advertising. The choice of material to go into a newspaper, and the decisions made as to limitations on the size and content of the paper, and treatment of public issues and public officials--whether fair or unfair--constitute the exercise of editorial control and judgment.
Although the U.S. Supreme Court decided the right to reply statute was unconstitutional, this does not prohibit public officials from contesting personalattacks printed by a newspaper. The print media is still beholden to libel laws that prevent them from publishing unsubstantiated, slanderous reports. However, Justice White expressed concern in his concurring opinion that provinglibel was becoming increasingly difficult. Indeed, in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. which was announced the exact day of the Miami Herald Publishing Company v. Tornillo decision, the Court disabled most of the protection afforded by the individual against libel. White warned that this was a dangerous development in a world where the power of the media monopoly remains unchecked.
Related Cases
- Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1 (1945).
- Gertz v. Robert Welch, 418 U.S. 323 (1974).
"Free Press" Refers to Press Only
The First Amendment guarantees "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom . . . of the press." While freedom of the press prohibits Congressfrom imposing restrictions upon the press, it does not guarantee anyone and everyone a forum for his or her opinions. The assurance does not provide for unfettered access by anyone wishing to editorialize. Newspapers were seen as avital tool of democratic action by the framers of the Constitution. The intention was to prohibit the government from limiting the press in its power ofeditorial decision making.
At least one state has attempted to infringe upon newspapers' editorial decision making with a statute referred to as a "Right of Reply" law. The U.S. Supreme Court has struck down such statutes as unconstitutional because these type of regulations would allow the government to dictate what must be printedin the newspaper. In order to sustain a free press, the newspapers, not the government, nor the public, must maintain authority over decisions of editorial content, and not be forced to publish opinions that they would otherwise reject.
Sources
Flite. http://www.law.vill.edu/Fed-Ct/Supreme/Flite/opinions/418US241.htm.
Cornell. http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/.
Grilliot, Harold J. and Frank A. Schubert. Introduction to Law and the Legal System. Fifth edition. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1992.
Further Readings
- Hall, Kermit L., ed. The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court ofthe United States. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.
User Comments Add a comment…