Opinions & Commentaries

The Post Office Appropriation Act of August 24, 1912, 37 Stat. 539, 553, 554, c. 389, in § 2, contains the following:"SEC. 2. . . . That it shall be the duty of the editor, publisher, business manager, or owner of every newspaper, magazine, periodical, or other publication to file with the Postmaster General and the postmaster at the office at which said publication is entered, not later than the first day of April and the first day of October of each year, on blanks furnished by the Post Office Department, a sworn statement setting forth the names and post-office addresses of the editor and managing editor, publisher, business managers, and owners, and, in addition, the stockholders, if the publication be owned by a corporation; and also the names of known bondholders, mortgagees, or other security holders; and also, in the case of daily newspapers, there shall be included in such statement the average of the number of copies of each issue of such publication sold or distributed to paid subscribers during the preceding six months: Provided, That the provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to religious, fraternal, temperance, and scientific, or other similar publications: Provided further, That it shall not be necessary to include in such statement the names of persons owning less than one per centum of the total amount of stock, bonds, mortgages, or other securities. A copy of such sworn statement shall be published in the second issue of such newspaper, magazine, or other publication printed *297 next after the filing of such statement. Any such publication shall be denied the privileges of the mail if it shall fail to comply with the provisions of this paragraph within ten days after notice by registered letter of such failure.

READ MORE


After a hearing on September 22, 1917, by the Third Assistant Postmaster General, of the time and character of which the relator (plaintiff in error) had due notice and at which it was represented by its president, an order was entered, revoking the second-class mail privilege granted to it in 1911 as publisher of the Milwaukee Leader. So far as appears, all that the relator desired to say or offer was heard and received. This hearing was had and *409 the order was entered upon the charge that articles were appearing in relator's paper so violating the provisions of the National Defense Law, approved June 15, 1917, which has come to be popularly known as the Espionage Act of Congress (c. 30, 40 Stat. 217), as to render it "non-mailable" by the express terms of Title XII of that act. On appeal to the Postmaster General the order was approved. Thereupon the relator filed a petition in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, praying that a writ of mandamus issue, commanding the Postmaster General to annul his order and restore the paper to the second-class privilege. To a rule to show cause the Postmaster General answered, and a demurrer to his answer being overruled and the relator not pleading further, the court discharged the rule and dismissed the petition. The Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia affirmed the judgment of the trial court, and the constitutional validity of laws of the United States being involved the case was brought here by writ of error.

READ MORE


Chapter 285 of the Session Laws of Minnesota for the year 1925[1] provides for the abatement, as a public nuisance, of a "malicious, scandalous and defamatory newspaper, *702 magazine or other periodical." Section one of the Act is as follows:"Section 1. Any person who, as an individual, or as a member or employee of a firm, or association or organization, or as an officer, director, member or employee of a corporation, shall be engaged in the business of regularly or customarily producing, publishing or circulating, having in possession, selling or giving away.

READ MORE


The publishers of more than 1,200 newspapers are members of the Associated Press (AP), a cooperative *4 association incorporated under the Membership Corporation Law of the State of New York. Its business is the collection, assembly and distribution of news. The news it distributes is originally obtained by direct employees of the Association, employees of the member newspapers, and the employees of foreign independent news agencies with which AP has contractual relations, such as the Canadian Press. Distribution of the news is made through interstate channels of communication to the various newspaper members of the Association, who pay for it under an assessment plan which contemplates no profit to AP.

READ MORE


This proceeding brings here for review a judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida, 156 Fla. 227, 22 So.2d 875, which affirmed a judgment of guilt in contempt of the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida, on a citation of petitioners by that Circuit Court.

READ MORE


331 U.S. 367 (1947) CRAIG ET AL. v. HARNEY, SHERIFF. No. 241. Supreme Court of United States. Argued January 9, 1947. Decided May 19, 1947. CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS. *368 Marcellus G. Eckhardt and Ireland Graves argued the cause for petitioners. With them on the brief was Charles L. Black. Jerry D’Unger argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was John S. McCampbell. Elisha Hanson and Letitia Armistead filed a brief for the American Newspaper Publishers Association, as amicus curiae, urging reversal. Opinion of the Court by MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, announced by […]

READ MORE


378 U.S. 205 (1964) A QUANTITY OF COPIES OF BOOKS ET AL. v. KANSAS.   No. 449. Supreme Court of United States.   Argued April 1-2, 1964. Decided June 22, 1964. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS.*206 Stanley Fleishman argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs was Sam Rosenwein. William M. Ferguson, Attorney General of Kansas, argued the cause for appellee. With him on the brief were Rober E. Hoffman, J. Richard Foth and Richard H. Seaton, Assistant Attorneys General of Kansas, and William Clement. The following State Attorneys General joined in the brief for appellee: […]

READ MORE


378 U.S. 576 (1964) TRALINS v. GERSTEIN, STATE ATTORNEY.   No. 246. Supreme Court of United States.   Decided June 22, 1964. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT.Richard Yale Feder and Howard W. Dixon for petitioner. Richard W. Ervin, Attorney General of Florida, Herbert P. Benn and Leonard R. Mellon, Assistant Attorneys General, and Glenn c. Mincer for respondent. PER CURIAM. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, and the judgment is reversed. MR. JUSTICE BLACK and MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS would reverse for the reasons stated in the […]

READ MORE


388 U.S. 447 (1967) ADAY ET AL. v. UNITED STATES.   No. 149. Supreme Court of United States.   Decided June 12, 1967. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT.Stanley Fleishman for petitioners. Solicitor General Marshall for the United States. Melvin L. Wulf, Rolland R. O’Hare and Erwin B. Ellmann for the American Civil Liberties Union et al., and Horace S. Manges for the American Book Publishers Council, Inc., as amici curiae, in support of the petition. Charles H. Keating, Jr., and James J. Clancy for Citizens for Decent Literature, […]

READ MORE


388 U.S. 449 (1967) BOOKS, INC. v. UNITED STATES.   No. 323. Supreme Court of United States.   Decided June 12, 1967. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT.Stanley Fleishman for petitioner. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Robert S. Erdahl and Marshall Tamor Golding for the United States. PER CURIAM. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit is reversed. Redrup v. New York, 386 U. S. 767. THE CHIEF JUSTICE would grant […]

READ MORE


388 U.S. 440 (1967) KENEY v. NEW YORK.   No. 2. Supreme Court of United States.   Decided June 12, 1967. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COUNTY COURT OF MONROE COUNTY, NEW YORK.Eugene Gressman for petitioner. James H. Biben for respondent. PER CURIAM. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment of the County Court of Monroe County, New York, is reversed. Redrup v. New York, 386 U. S. 767. MR. JUSTICE HARLAN adheres to the views expressed in his separate opinions in Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476, 496, and […]

READ MORE


388 U.S. 441 (1967) FRIEDMAN v. NEW YORK.   No. 7. Supreme Court of United States.   Decided June 12, 1967. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, FIRST JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT.Ira H. Holley and Eugene Gressman for petitioner. Frank S. Hogan for respondent. PER CURIAM. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, First Judicial Department, is reversed. Redrup v. New York, 386 U. S. 767. MR. JUSTICE HARLAN adheres to the views expressed in […]

READ MORE


388 U.S. 442 (1967) RATNER ET AL. v. CALIFORNIA.   No. 10. Supreme Court of United States.   Decided June 12, 1967. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE APPELLATE DEPARTMENT OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO.Richard A. Lavine for petitioners. Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, and Robert R. Granucci and Charles W. Rumph, Deputy Attorneys General, for respondent. PER CURIAM. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment of the Appellate Department of the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, is reversed. Redrup v. New York, […]

READ MORE


388 U.S. 443 (1967) COBERT v. NEW YORK.   No. 21. Supreme Court of United States.   Decided June 12, 1967. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK.Ephraim London for petitioner. Frank S. Hogan for respondent. PER CURIAM. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment of the Court of Appeals of New York is reversed. Redrup v. New York, 386 U. S. 767. THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE CLARK, and MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN would affirm. MR. JUSTICE HARLAN adheres to the views expressed in his separate opinions in […]

READ MORE


388 U.S. 444 (1967) SHEPERD ET AL. v. NEW YORK.   No. 26. Supreme Court of United States.   Decided June 12, 1967. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, FIRST JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT.Ira H. Holley and Eugene Gressman for petitioners. Frank S. Hogan for respondent. PER CURIAM. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, First Judicial Department, is reversed. Redrup v. New York, 386 U. S. 767. THE CHIEF JUSTICE and MR. JUSTICE CLARK […]

READ MORE


388 U.S. 446 (1967) AVANSINO ET AL. v. NEW YORK.   No. 72. Supreme Court of United States.   Decided June 12, 1967. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, FIRST JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT.Eugene Gressman for petitioners. Frank S. Hogan for respondent. PER CURIAM. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, First Judicial Department, is reversed. Redrup v. New York, 386 U. S. 767. THE CHIEF JUSTICE and MR. JUSTICE CLARK would affirm. Mishkin v. […]

READ MORE


388 U.S. 448 (1967) CORINTH PUBLICATIONS, INC. v. WESBERRY ET AL.   No. 227. Supreme Court of United States.   Decided June 12, 1967. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA.Stanley Fleishman for petitioner. Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General of Georgia, and G. Ernest Tidwell, Executive Assistant Attorney General, for respondents. PER CURIAM. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Georgia is reversed. THE CHIEF JUSTICE would grant the petition and set the case for oral argument. MR. JUSTICE CLARK would grant the petition and […]

READ MORE


388 U.S. 450 (1967) ROSENBLOOM v. VIRGINIA.   No. 366. Supreme Court of United States.   Decided June 12, 1967. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA.Seymour Horwitz and Melvin L. Wulf for petitioner. James B. Wilkinson for respondent. PER CURIAM. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia is reversed. Sunshine Book Co. v. Summerfield, 355 U. S. 372. MR. JUSTICE HARLAN adheres to the views expressed in his separate opinions in Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476, […]

READ MORE


388 U.S. 454 (1967) SCHACKMAN ET AL. v. CALIFORNIA.   No. 995. Supreme Court of United States.   Decided June 12, 1967. APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES.Burton Marks for appellants. Roger Arnebergh and Philip E. Grey for appellee. PER CURIAM. The judgments of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, are reversed. Redrup v. New York, 386 U. S. 767. THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE CLARK, and MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN would affirm the judgments of the lower court. Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U. S. 463. MR. JUSTICE HARLAN adheres to the […]

READ MORE


389 U.S. 50 (1967) CENTRAL MAGAZINE SALES, LTD. v. UNITED STATES.   No. 368. Supreme Court of United States.   Decided October 23, 1967. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT.Richard Lipsitz for petitioner. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson and Jerome M. Feit for the United States. PER CURIAM. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is reversed. Redrup v. New York, 386 U. S. 767. MR. JUSTICE HARLAN concurs in the […]

READ MORE


389 U.S. 47 (1967) POTOMAC NEWS CO. v. UNITED STATES.   No. 164. Supreme Court of United States.   Decided October 23, 1967. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT.Stanley M. Dietz for petitioner. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson and Jerome M. Feit for the United States. PER CURIAM. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is reversed. Redrup v. New York, 386 U. S. 767. MR. JUSTICE HARLAN concurs in the […]

READ MORE


389 U.S. 48 (1967) CONNER v. CITY OF HAMMOND.   No. 259. Supreme Court of United States.   Decided October 23, 1967. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE TWENTY-FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, LOUISIANA, PARISH OF TANGIPAHOA.Leonard B. Levy and Stanley Fleishman for petitioner. PER CURIAM. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment of the Twenty-first Judicial District Court for the Parish of Tangipahoa, Louisiana, is reversed. Redrup v. New York, 386 U. S. 767. MR. JUSTICE HARLAN would affirm the judgment of the state court upon the premises stated in his separate opinion […]

READ MORE


389 U.S. 81 (1967) BECKLEY NEWSPAPERS CORP. v. HANKS.     No. 467. Supreme Court of United States.    Decided November 6, 1967. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WEST VIRGINIA, WYOMING COUNTY.Thurman Arnold and Jack A. Mann for petitioner.Harry G. Camper, Jr., for respondent. PER CURIAM. The petition for certiorari is granted. Respondent Hanks is the elected Clerk of the Criminal and Circuit Courts of Raleigh County, West Virginia. He brought this libel action in the West Virginia Circuit Court, Wyoming County, alleging that during his reelection campaign he was libeled by three editorials, […]

READ MORE


389 U.S. 89 (1967) CHANCE v. CALIFORNIA.   No. 306, Misc. Supreme Court of United States.   Decided November 6, 1967. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO.Marshall W. Krause for petitioner. Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, and Robert R. Granucci and Michael J. Phelan, Deputy Attorneys General, for respondent. PER CURIAM. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is reversed. Redrup v. New York, 386 U. S. 767. MR. JUSTICE HARLAN would affirm for the reasons […]

READ MORE


This suit for declaratory relief that a Maryland teacher's oath required of appellant was unconstitutional was heard by a three-judge court and dismissed. 258 F. Supp. 589. We noted probable jurisdiction. 386 U. S. 906.

READ MORE


389 U.S. 573 (1968) I. M. AMUSEMENT CORP. v. OHIO.   No. 260. Supreme Court of United States.   Decided January 15, 1968. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO.Allen Brown for appellant. Melvin G. Rueger and Calvin W. Prem for appellee. PER CURIAM. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Ohio is reversed. Redrup v. New York, 386 U. S. 767. THE CHIEF JUSTICE concurs on the ground that evidence of contemporary community standards was excluded at trial. MR. JUSTICE HARLAN would affirm for the reasons set forth in his separate opinion in Roth v. United States, 354 U. […]

READ MORE


389 U.S. 578 (1968) ROBERT-ARTHUR MANAGEMENT CORP. v. TENNESSEE EX REL. CANALE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY GENERAL.   No. 679. Supreme Court of United States.   Decided January 15, 1968. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE.Longstreet Heiskell for appellant. George F. McCanless, Attorney General of Tennessee, and Thomas E. Fox, Deputy Attorney General, for appellee. PER CURIAM. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Tennessee is reversed. Redrup v. New York, 386 U. S. 767. THE CHIEF JUSTICE would affirm. MR. JUSTICE HARLAN would affirm for the reasons set forth in his separate opinion in Roth v. United States, 354 U. […]

READ MORE


390 U.S. 340 (1968) FELTON ET AL. v. CITY OF PENSACOLA.     No. 934. Supreme Court of United States.    Decided March 11, 1968. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIRST DISTRICT.Stanley Fleishman, Sam Rosenwein and Hugh W. Gibert for petitioners.Dave Caton for respondent. PER CURIAM. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment of the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, is reversed. Redrup v. New York, 386 U. S. 767. THE CHIEF JUSTICE would grant the petition and reverse because of the failure […]

READ MORE


392 U.S. 655 (1968) HENRY v. LOUISIANA.   No. 932. Supreme Court of United States.   Decided June 17, 1968. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA.Thomas Barr III for appellant. Jack P. F. Gremillion, Attorney General of Louisiana, and William P. Schuler, Second Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. PER CURIAM. The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari is granted and the judgment is reversed. Redrup v. New York, 386 U. S. 767. MR. JUSTICE […]

READ MORE


396 U.S. 119 (1969) CARLOS v. NEW YORK.     No. 524. Supreme Court of United States.    Decided December 8, 1969. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK.Herald Price Fahringer and Eugene Gressman for petitioner.PER CURIAM. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment is reversed, Redrup v. New York, 386 U. S. 767. THE CHIEF JUSTICE and MR. JUSTICE HARLAN are of the opinion that certiorari should be denied. However, the case having been taken for review, they would affirm the judgment of the state court upon […]

READ MORE


398 U.S. 278 (1970) BLOSS ET AL. v. DYKEMA.   No. 1347. Supreme Court of United States.   Decided June 1, 1970 ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN.PER CURIAM. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment of the Michigan Court of Appeals is reversed. Redrup v. New York, 386 U. S. 767. THE CHIEF JUSTICE and MR. JUSTICE WHITE are of the opinion that certiorari should be denied. MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, dissenting. I would affirm […]

READ MORE


399 U.S. 524 (1970) HOYT ET AL. v. MINNESOTA.   No. 1544. Supreme Court of United States.   Decided June 29, 1970. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA.PER CURIAM. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment is reversed, Redrup v. New York, 386 U. S. 767. MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and MR. JUSTICE HARLAN join, dissenting. I am not persuaded that the First and Fourteenth Amendments necessarily prescribe a national and uniform measure—rather than one capable of some flexibility and resting on concepts of reasonableness—of […]

READ MORE


403 U.S. 713 (1971) NEW YORK TIMES CO. v. UNITED STATES.         No. 1873. Supreme Court of United States.    Argued June 26, 1971 Decided June 30, 1971[*] CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT.Alexander M. Bickel argued the cause for petitioner in No. 1873. With him on the brief were William E. Hegarty and Lawrence J. McKay.Solicitor General Griswold argued the cause for the United States in both cases. With him on the brief were Assistant Attorney General Mardian and Daniel M. Friedman.William R. Glendon argued the cause for respondents in […]

READ MORE


408 U.S. 665 (1972) BRANZBURG v. HAYES ET AL., JUDGES. No. 70-85. Supreme Court of United States. Argued February 23, 1972. Decided June 29, 1972.[*] CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY. Edgar A. Zingman argued the cause for petitioner in No. 70-85. With him on the briefs was Robert C. Ewald. E. Barrett Prettyman, Jr., argued the cause for petitioner in No. 70-94. With him on the briefs was William H. Carey. Solicitor General Griswold argued the cause for the United States in No. 70-57. With him on the briefs were Assistant Attorney General Wilson, Assistant Attorney General […]

READ MORE


The Human Relations Ordinance of the City of Pittsburgh (the Ordinance) has been construed below by *378 the courts of Pennsylvania as forbidding newspapers to carry "help-wanted" advertisements in sex-designated columns except where the employer or advertiser is free to make hiring or employment referral decisions on the basis of sex. We are called upon to decide whether the Ordinance as so construed violates the freedoms of speech and of the press guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. This issue is a sensitive one, and a full understanding of the context in which it arises is critical to its resolution.

READ MORE


413 U.S. 836 (1973) ALEXANDER ET AL. v. VIRGINIA   No. 71-1315. Supreme Court of the United States.   Argued October 19, 1972. Decided June 25, 1973. CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIAStanley M. Dietz argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioners. James E. Kulp, Assistant Attorney General of Virginia, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Andrew P. Miller, Attorney General, and Robert E. Shepherd, Jr., Assistant Attorney General.[*] PER CURIAM. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Virginia is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with […]

READ MORE


The respondents, a major metropolitan newspaper and one of its reporters, initiated this litigation to challenge the constitutionality of ¶ 4b (6) of Policy Statement 1220.1A of the Federal Bureau of Prisons.[1] At the time that the case was in the District Court and the Court of Appeals, this regulation prohibited any personal interviews between newsmen and individually designated federal prison inmates. The Solicitor General has informed the Court that the regulation was recently amended "to permit press interviews at federal prison institutions that can be characterized as minimum security."[2] The general prohibition of press interviews with inmates remains in effect, however, in three-quarters of the federal prisons, i. e., in all medium security and maximum security institutions, including the two institutions involved in this case.

READ MORE


These cases are here on cross-appeals from the judgment of a three-judge District Court in the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs in the District Court were four California prison inmates—Booker T. Hillery, Jr., John Larry Spain, Bobby Bly, and Michael Shane Guile—and three professional journalists—Eve Pell, Betty Segal, and Paul Jacobs. The defendants were Raymond K. Procunier, Director of the California Department of Corrections, and several subordinate officers in that department. The plaintiffs brought the suit to challenge the constitutionality, under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, of § 415.071 of the California Department of Corrections Manual, which provides that "[p]ress and other media interviews with specific individual inmates will not be permitted." They sought both injunctive and declaratory relief under 42 U. S. C. § 1983. Section 415.071 was promulgated by defendant Procunier under authority vested in him by § 5058 of the California Penal Code and is applied uniformly throughout the State's penal system to prohibit face-to-face interviews between press representatives and individual inmates whom they specifically name and request to interview. *820 In accordance with 28 U. S. C. §§ 2281 and 2284, a three-judge court was convened to hear the case.[1]

READ MORE


The issue in this case is whether a state statute granting a political candidate a right to equal space to reply to criticism and attacks on his record by a newspaper violates the guarantees of a free press.

READ MORE


Petitioners, a mother and her son, brought a diversity action against respondents, a newspaper publisher and a reporter, for invasion of privacy based on a feature story in the newspaper discussing the impact upon petitioners' family of the death of the father in a bridge collapse. The story concededly contained a number of inaccuracies and false statements about the family. The District Judge struck the claims for punitive damages for lack of evidence of malice "within the legal definition of that term," but allowed the case to go to the jury on the "false light" theory of invasion of privacy, after instructing the jurors that liability could be imposed only if they found that the false statements were published with knowledge of their falsity or in reckless disregard of the truth, and the jury returned a verdict for compensatory damages.

READ MORE


The issue before us in this case is whether, consistently with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, a State may extend a cause of action for damages for invasion of privacy caused by the publication of the name of a deceased rape victim which was publicly revealed in connection with the prosecution of the crime.

READ MORE


The respondent State District Judge entered an order restraining the petitioners from publishing or broadcasting accounts of confessions or admissions made by the accused or facts "strongly implicative" of the accused in a widely reported murder of six persons. We granted certiorari to decide whether the entry of such an order on the showing made before the state court violated the constitutional guarantee of freedom of the press.

READ MORE


430 U.S. 308 (1977) OKLAHOMA PUBLISHING CO. v. DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR OKLAHOMA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA, ET AL.   No. 76-867. Supreme Court of United States.   Decided March 7, 1977. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA.PER CURIAM. A pretrial order entered by the District Court of Oklahoma County enjoined members of the news media from “publishing, broadcasting, or disseminating, in any manner, the name or picture of [a] minor child” in connection with a juvenile proceeding involving that child then pending in that court. On application for prohibition and mandamus challenging the order […]

READ MORE


This case presents the question whether the District Court for the District of Columbia should release to respondents certain tapes admitted into evidence at the trial of petitioner's former advisers. Respondents wish to copy the tapes for broadcasting and sale to the public. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the District Court's refusal to permit immediate copying of the tapes was an abuse of discretion. United States v. Mitchell, 179 U. S. App. D. C. 293, 551 F. 2d 1252 (1976). We granted certiorari, 430 U. S. 944 (1977), and for the reasons that follow, we reverse.

READ MORE


The question presented on this appeal is whether the Commonwealth of Virginia may subject persons, including newspapers, to criminal sanctions for divulging information regarding proceedings before a state judicial review commission which is authorized to hear complaints as to judges' disability or misconduct, when such proceedings are declared confidential by the State Constitution and statutes.[1]

READ MORE


Respondents, a student newspaper that had published articles and photographs of a clash between demonstrators and police at a hospital, and staff members, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against, among others, Petitioners, law enforcement and district attorney personnel, claiming that a search pursuant to a warrant issued on a judge's finding of probable cause that the newspaper (which was not involved in the unlawful acts) possessed photographs and negatives revealing the identities of demonstrators who had assaulted police officers at the hospital had deprived respondents of their constitutional rights.

READ MORE


438 U.S. 1 (1978) HOUCHINS, SHERIFF OF THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA v. KQED, INC., ET AL. No. 76-1310. Supreme Court of United States. Argued November 29, 1977. Decided June 26, 1978. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. *3 Kelvin H. Booty, Jr., argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was Richard J. Moore. William Bennett Turner argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Jack Greenberg, James M. Nabrit III, and Stanley A. Bass.[*] MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an […]

READ MORE


We granted certiorari to consider whether a West Virginia statute violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution by making it a crime for a newspaper to publish, without the written approval of the juvenile court, the name of any youth charged as a juvenile offender.

READ MORE


The question presented in this case is whether members of the public have an independent constitutional right to insist upon access to a pretrial judicial proceeding, even though *371 the accused, the prosecutor, and the trial judge all have agreed to the closure of that proceeding in order to assure a fair trial.

READ MORE


448 U.S. 555 (1980) RICHMOND NEWSPAPERS, INC., ET AL. v. VIRGINIA ET AL.   No. 79-243. Supreme Court of United States.   Argued February 19, 1980. Decided July 2, 1980. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA.*558 Laurence H. Tribe argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs were Andrew J. Brent, Alexander Wellford, Leslie W. Mullins, and David Rosenberg. Marshall Coleman, Attorney General of Virginia, argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief were James E. Moore, Leonard L. Hopkins, Jr., Martin A. Donlan, Jr., and Jerry P. Slonaker, Assistant Attorneys General.[*] MR. CHIEF JUSTICE […]

READ MORE


Section 16A of Chapter 278 of the Massachusetts General Laws,[1] as construed by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, requires trial judges, at trials for specified sexual offenses involving a victim under the age of 18, to exclude the press and general public from the courtroom during the testimony of that victim. The question presented is whether the statute thus construed violates the First Amendment as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.

READ MORE


This case presents the question of a State's power to impose a special tax on the press and, by enacting exemptions, to limit its effect to only a few newspapers.

READ MORE


We granted certiorari to decide whether the guarantees of open public proceedings in criminal trials cover proceedings for the voir dire examination of potential jurors.

READ MORE


This case presents the issue whether parties to civil litigation have a First Amendment right to disseminate, in advance of trial, information gained through the pretrial discovery process.

READ MORE


We granted certiorari to decide whether petitioner has a First Amendment right of access to the transcript of a preliminary hearing growing out of a criminal prosecution.

READ MORE


Florida Stat. § 794.03 (1987) makes it unlawful to "print, publish, or broadcast . . . in any instrument of mass communication" the name of the victim of a sexual offense.[1] Pursuant to this statute, appellant The Florida Star was found civilly liable for publishing the name of a rape victim which it had obtained from a publicly released police report. The issue presented here is whether this result comports with the First Amendment. We hold that it does not.

READ MORE


In this case we are asked to decide whether a university enjoys a special privilege, grounded in either the common law or the First Amendment, against disclosure of peer review materials that are relevant to charges of racial or sexual discrimination in tenure decisions.

READ MORE


A Florida statute, with certain limited exceptions, prohibits a grand jury witness from ever disclosing testimony which he gave before that body. We hold that insofar as the Florida law prohibits a grand jury witness from disclosing his own testimony after the term of the grand jury has ended, it violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

READ MORE


Arkansas' Gross Receipts Act imposed a sales tax on dozens of services, including the provision of cable television. The Act, however, exempted from taxation receipts from newspaper and magazine sales. The cable television industry in Arkansas brought suit challenging the Act, arguing that Arkansas could not constitutionally tax cable television when it was not taxing the print media. The trial court rejected this argument. While the case was on appeal, Arkansas amended the Act to tax all television and radio services. The Arkansas Supreme Court upheld the trial court's decision, stating that the First Amendment does not prohibit different taxation of different members of the media. The Arkansas Supreme Court, however, also held that the First Amendment does prohibit differential taxation among member of the same medium and therefore found that the Act was unconstitutional to the extent that it, before the amendment, taxed cable television differently from satellite television services. Differential taxation of speakers and publishers is constitutionally suspect when it threatens to suppress the expression of particular ideas or viewpoints. A tax also is suspect if it targets a small group of speakers. Moreover, a tax triggers heightened scrutiny if it discriminates among speakers based on the content of their speech.Arkansas Writers' Project, Inc. v. Ragland, 481 U.S. 221 (1987); Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Comm'r of Revenue, 460 U.S. 575 (1983); Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233 (1936).

READ MORE


508 U.S. 147 (1993) EL VOCERO de PUERTO RICO et al. v. PUERTO RICO et al.     No. 92-949. United States Supreme Court.    Decided May 17, 1993. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO RICO*148 Per Curiam.Under the Puerto Rico Rules of Criminal Procedure, an accused felon is entitled to a hearing to determine if he shall be held for trial. P. R. Laws Ann., Tit. 34, App. II, Rule 23 (1991). A neutral magistrate presides over the hearing, People v. Opio Opio, 104 P. R. R. (4 Official Translations 231, 239) (1975), […]

READ MORE


February 15, 2017

Collectively, this bundle of rights, largely developed by U.S. Supreme Court decisions, defines the “freedom of the press” guaranteed by the First Amendment. What we mean by the freedom of the press is, in fact, an evolving concept. It is a concept that is informed by the perceptions of those who crafted the press clause in an era of pamphlets, political tracts and periodical newspapers, and by the views of Supreme Court justices who have interpreted that clause over the past two centuries in a world of daily newspapers, books, magazines, motion pictures, radio and television broadcasts, and internet content.

READ MORE

Help FIRE protect the speech rights of students and faculty.

Support FIRE
css.php