Miami Herald Publ’g Co. v. Tornillo

Supreme Court of United States
418 U.S. 241 (1974)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A state cannot constitutionally compel a newspaper to publish content it does not wish to publish, as such a requirement intrudes upon the newspaper's editorial judgment and violates the First Amendment's guarantee of a free press.

Facts:

Pat Tornillo was the Executive Director of the Classroom Teachers Association and a candidate for the Florida House of Representatives in 1972.
On September 20, 1972, the Miami Herald published an editorial critical of Tornillo's candidacy, citing his leadership in a prior teachers' strike.
On September 29, 1972, the Miami Herald published a second editorial criticizing Tornillo.
Citing Florida's 'right of reply' statute, Tornillo demanded that the Miami Herald publish his verbatim responses to the editorials.
The Miami Herald refused to publish Tornillo's replies.

Procedural Posture:

Pat Tornillo sued the Miami Herald Publishing Co. in the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida, a state trial court.
Tornillo sought declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as damages, based on Florida's 'right of reply' statute.
The Circuit Court held that the statute was an unconstitutional infringement on the freedom of the press and dismissed Tornillo's complaint.
Tornillo, as appellant, filed a direct appeal to the Florida Supreme Court.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed the trial court, holding that the statute was constitutional and did not violate the free press guarantee.
The Florida Supreme Court remanded the case for further proceedings.
The Miami Herald, as appellant, appealed the decision of the Florida Supreme Court 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 statute that grants a political candidate a right to equal space to reply to criticism by a newspaper violate the First Amendment's guarantee of a free press?

Opinions:

Majority - Chief Justice Burger

Yes. A state statute granting a political candidate a right to equal space to reply to criticism by a newspaper violates the guarantees of a free press. Compelling editors or publishers to publish that which 'reason' tells them should not be published is an unconstitutional intrusion into the function of editors. The Florida statute exacts a penalty based on the content of a newspaper, both in terms of the cost of printing the reply and the usurpation of space that could be used for other material. This government-enforced access could lead editors to avoid controversial political coverage to prevent being forced to publish replies, which would ultimately dampen the vigor and limit the variety of public debate. The choice of material for a newspaper, including decisions on content and size, constitutes the exercise of editorial control and judgment, which is protected by the First Amendment.

Concurring - Justice Brennan

Yes. The court's opinion correctly holds that 'right of reply' statutes are unconstitutional. However, this holding should be understood to only address such statutes and does not imply any view on the constitutionality of 'retraction' statutes, which may afford plaintiffs who can prove defamatory falsehoods a statutory action to require the publication of a retraction.

Concurring - Justice White

Yes. The First Amendment creates a nearly insurmountable barrier preventing the government from tampering with the editorial content of the print media. The core constitutional flaw of the Florida statute is that it forces a newspaper to print copy which, in its journalistic discretion, it chooses to omit. While affirming this principle, it is important to recognize the consequences of this decision in conjunction with the companion case, Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., which makes it significantly harder for individuals to succeed in libel actions. These two decisions together may leave individuals unfairly attacked by an increasingly powerful press with little to no effective remedy.

Analysis:

This landmark decision firmly established that the freedom of the press under the First Amendment includes the right of a newspaper to control its content, encompassing both what it prints and what it chooses not to print. The Court rejected the 'right of access' argument for print media, prioritizing editorial autonomy over government-mandated fairness or balance. The ruling creates a strong presumption against any law that compels publication, reinforcing the idea that press responsibility is an ethical goal, not a constitutional command that can be legislated or enforced by the government.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Miami Herald Publ’g Co. v. Tornillo (1974)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature