Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn
420 U.S. 469, 95 S.Ct. 1029, 43 L.Ed.2d 328 (1975)
Rule of Law:
The First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit states from imposing civil liability on the press for the accurate publication of a rape victim's name obtained from official court records that are open to public inspection.
Facts:
- In August 1971, Martin Cohn's 17-year-old daughter was the victim of a rape and did not survive.
- Six youths were subsequently indicted for murder and rape.
- In April 1972, during court proceedings for the accused, reporter Wassell of Cox Broadcasting Corp. was covering the story.
- During a recess in the proceedings, Wassell examined the indictments, which were public records made available to him in the courtroom.
- The indictments contained the victim's name, which had not previously been disclosed by the press.
- Wassell later broadcast a news report about the proceedings which identified the victim by name.
- The news report was broadcast again the following day.
Procedural Posture:
- Martin Cohn, the victim's father, sued Cox Broadcasting Corp. and its reporter, Wassell, in a Georgia state trial court for invasion of privacy.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Cohn on the issue of liability, rejecting the defendants' First Amendment claims.
- Cox Broadcasting, as appellant, appealed to the Supreme Court of Georgia.
- The Georgia Supreme Court initially reversed, holding that the complaint stated a common law cause of action for public disclosure, and remanded for a jury trial.
- On rehearing, the Georgia Supreme Court again rejected the appellants' constitutional arguments, holding that the state's interest in privacy outweighed the freedom of the press in this context, and affirmed its remand for trial.
- Cox Broadcasting, as appellant, appealed the Georgia Supreme Court's final ruling on the constitutional issue to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state law that permits a civil cause of action for invasion of privacy against a media outlet for publishing the name of a deceased rape victim, when that name was obtained from public judicial records, violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments' guarantees of freedom of speech and the press?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice White
Yes. A State may not impose sanctions on the accurate publication of a rape victim's name obtained from judicial records that are maintained in connection with a public prosecution and are open to public inspection. The press has a constitutional responsibility to report on the operations of government, including judicial proceedings, which are events of legitimate public concern. Once the government places truthful information into the public domain through official records, the press cannot be held liable for its subsequent publication. To allow liability would invite timidity and self-censorship, leading to the suppression of information that should be available to the public and hindering the press's role in ensuring the fair administration of justice.
Concurring - Justice Powell
Agrees with the majority's holding that the First Amendment bars civil liability for publishing truthful information from open judicial records. He writes separately to express his view, informed by Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., that truth should be a constitutionally required, complete defense in defamation actions brought by private citizens, an issue he sees as closely related to the privacy action in this case. In cases where the interest to be protected is reputational harm from false statements, the Gertz standard, which requires some level of fault, implicitly requires that the statements be false for liability to attach.
Concurring - Justice Douglas
Agrees with the judgment but on much broader grounds. He believes the First Amendment provides an absolute prohibition on the government imposing damages for 'merely discussing public affairs.' In his view, there is no governmental power to suppress or penalize the publication of the 'news of the day,' and any balancing of interests inevitably leads to media self-censorship, undermining the robust public discourse the First Amendment is meant to protect.
Dissenting - Justice Rehnquist
Disagrees on jurisdictional grounds and does not reach the merits. He argues that the U.S. Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction because the Georgia Supreme Court's decision was not a 'final judgment.' The case was remanded for a trial on the merits, where Cox Broadcasting could have prevailed on non-federal grounds, potentially making a constitutional ruling unnecessary. He criticizes the majority’s 'pragmatic' expansion of the finality doctrine, arguing it undermines principles of federalism and the long-standing judicial practice of avoiding constitutional questions unless absolutely necessary.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant, near-absolute First Amendment protection for the press to report truthful information obtained from public records. It effectively creates a bright-line rule that immunizes the media from liability for invasion of privacy when the published information is accurate and sourced from official government documents open to the public. The ruling shifts the burden to the state; if the state wishes to protect an individual's privacy, it must do so by avoiding the initial public documentation of the sensitive information, rather than by punishing the press for reporting what is publicly available. This precedent solidifies the media's role in scrutinizing government functions, particularly the justice system, by ensuring access to and the ability to report on official proceedings without fear of civil sanctions for publishing the content of those records.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn (1975)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"