Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Monkbot (talk | contribs) at 03:23, 29 December 2020 (Task 18 (cosmetic): eval 1 template: hyphenate params (1×);). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
This article needs attention from an expert in U.S. Supreme Court, Law or Freedom of Speech. Please add a reason or a talk parameter to this template to explain the issue with the article. WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court, WikiProject Law or WikiProject Freedom of Speech may be able to help recruit an expert. (March 2015) |
Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Pat Tornillo | |
---|---|
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 |
Case history | |
Prior | Appeal 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 | |
| |
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.
Miami attorney Dan Paul, long-time attorney for the Miami Herald, was its chief lawyer in the case.[1]
See also
- Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC (1969)
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 418
- Fairness doctrine
- Right of reply
References
- ^ Dennis Hevesi (February 2, 2010). "Dan Paul, 85, leading lawyer for press freedom". Boston Globe. – via HighBeam Research (subscription required) . Archived from the original on May 9, 2013. Retrieved 24 April 2013.
External links
- Text of Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974) is available from: CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)
This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
- Subscription required using via
- Pages containing links to subscription-only content
- Articles needing expert attention with no reason or talk parameter
- Articles needing expert attention from March 2015
- All articles needing expert attention
- Miscellaneous articles needing expert attention
- Law articles needing expert attention
- Articles with short description
- Short description matches Wikidata
- All stub articles