Florida Star v. B.J.F.
491 U.S. 524 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
If a newspaper lawfully obtains truthful information about a matter of public significance, state officials may not constitutionally punish its publication, absent a need to further a state interest of the highest order.
Facts:
- B. J. F. reported to the Duval County Sheriff’s Department that she had been robbed and sexually assaulted.
- The Sheriff's Department prepared an incident report that included B. J. F.'s full name.
- The department placed the complete, unredacted report in its pressroom, which was open to reporters.
- A reporter-trainee for The Florida Star, a weekly newspaper, copied the report verbatim, including B. J. F.'s full name.
- The Florida Star subsequently published a one-paragraph article about the crime which included B. J. F.'s full name, in violation of its own internal policy.
- Following the publication, B. J. F.'s mother received threatening phone calls, causing B. J. F. to change her residence and seek mental health counseling.
Procedural Posture:
- B. J. F. sued The Florida Star and the Duval County Sheriff's Department in the Circuit Court of Duval County, a Florida trial court.
- The Sheriff's Department settled with B. J. F. prior to trial.
- The trial judge denied The Florida Star's motion to dismiss on First Amendment grounds.
- The trial judge granted a directed verdict for B. J. F. on the issue of negligence, finding the newspaper negligent per se for violating a state statute.
- A jury awarded B. J. F. $75,000 in compensatory and $25,000 in punitive damages.
- The Florida Star (appellant) appealed to the First District Court of Appeal of Florida, which affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The Supreme Court of Florida, the state's highest court, denied discretionary review.
- The Florida Star appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.
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 imposing civil damages on a newspaper for publishing the name of a rape victim, which the newspaper lawfully obtained from a publicly released police report, violate the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of the press?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Marshall
Yes. Imposing civil damages on The Florida Star for publishing B. J. F.'s name violates the First Amendment. The Court applied the principle from Smith v. Daily Mail: where a newspaper lawfully obtains truthful information about a matter of public significance, punishing the publication is unconstitutional unless it is narrowly tailored to serve a state interest of the highest order. Here, the information was truthful and lawfully obtained from a government source, and the crime was a matter of public significance. The state's interests in protecting the privacy and safety of sexual assault victims are highly significant, but the Florida statute was not narrowly tailored for three reasons: 1) The government itself was the source of the information; it cannot punish the press for publishing information the government failed to protect. 2) The statute created a negligence per se standard, imposing automatic liability without the case-by-case balancing required for privacy torts. 3) The statute was underinclusive, as it only punished publication by 'instruments of mass communication' and not by individuals, which undermines the state's claim that it is protecting an interest of the highest order.
Dissenting - Justice White
No. Imposing civil damages on the newspaper does not violate the First Amendment. The majority accords too little weight to the profound privacy interests of a rape victim. This case is distinguishable from precedents like Cox Broadcasting because the information came from a police report intended to be confidential, not a public court record. The newspaper reporter knew that publishing the name was prohibited, as signs in the pressroom indicated such information was not public record. The state took reasonable steps to protect the victim's identity, and the press should not be immunized when those measures fail due to a government mistake. The majority's concerns about the liability standard and the statute's underinclusiveness are misplaced; the jury found a high degree of fault ('reckless indifference'), and the law permissibly targets the most widespread and damaging form of dissemination.
Concurring - Justice Scalia
Yes. The civil damages award violates the First Amendment, but solely on the grounds that the Florida statute is underinclusive. A law cannot be regarded as protecting an interest 'of the highest order' when it prohibits the press from disseminating information but allows individuals to do so through gossip. This selective prohibition appears to be a rule society is willing to impose on the press but not on itself. Because the law leaves a significant amount of damage to the victim's privacy interest unaddressed, it cannot justify the restriction on truthful speech.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the Smith v. Daily Mail test as the controlling standard for cases involving the publication of lawfully obtained, truthful information. It establishes a high bar for punishing the media, even when the information is highly sensitive, such as the identity of a sexual assault victim. The ruling places the primary burden on the government to protect confidential information at its source, rather than allowing the government to punish the press after an inadvertent release. This precedent significantly strengthens press protections against privacy-based torts and statutory liability when reporting on information found in the public domain or provided by the government.
Unlock the full brief for Florida Star v. B.J.F.