7/21/2019 cases 2 civil liberties

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cases-2-civil-liberties 1/2

Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo

Facts of the Case:

Pat Tornillo was Executive Director of the Classroom Teachers Association and acandidate for the Florida House of Representatives in Dade County Florida! The "iami

Herald pu#lished two editorials critici$in% Tornillo and his candidacy! He demanded that

the Herald pu#lish his responses to the editorials! &hen the Herald refused Tornillo suedin Dade County Circuit Court under Florida 'tatute 'ection ()*!+, which %ranted

 political candidates critici$ed #y any newspaper the ri%ht to have their responses to the

criticisms pu#lished! The Herald challen%ed the statute as a violation of the free pressclause of the First Amendment! The Circuit Court ruled that the statute was

unconstitutional! The 'upreme Court of Florida reversed this decision!

-uestion:

Did Florida 'tatute 'ection ()*!+, the .ri%ht to reply. statute violate the free pressclause of the First Amendment applied to the states throu%h the Fourteenth Amendment/

Conclusion:

0es! 1n a unanimous decision the Court reversed the 'upreme Court of Florida and held

that Florida2s .ri%ht to reply. statute violated the freedom of press found in the FirstAmendment! 1n an opinion written #y Chief 3ustice &arren E! 4ur%er the Court

reco%ni$ed the ris5s posed to the .true mar5etplace of ideas. #y media consolidation and #arriers to entry in the newspaper industry! However even in that context .press

responsi#ility is not mandated #y the Constitution and6cannot #e le%islated!. The statute

was an .intrusion into the function of editors. and imposed .a penalty on the #asis of the

content!. Chief 3ustice 4ur%er relied on 7ew 0or5 Times v! 'ullivan in that the .ri%ht toreply. statute .limits the variety of pu#lic de#ate. and was therefore unconstitutional!

3ustice &illiam 3! 4rennan 3r! authored a concurrin% statement! 3ustice 4yron R! &hite

authored a concurrin% opinion!

Gertz v. Robert WelchFacts of the Case:8ert$ was an attorney hired #y a family to sue a police officer who had 5illed the family2s

son! 1n a ma%a$ine called American 9pinion the 3ohn 4irch 'ociety accused 8ert$ of

 #ein% a .eninist. and a .Communist;fronter. #ecause he chose to represent clients whowere suin% a law enforcement officer! 8ert$ lost his li#el suit #ecause a lower court found

that the ma%a$ine had not violated the actual malice test for li#el which the 'upreme

Court had esta#lished in 7ew 0or5 Times v! 'ullivan <(=>*?!

-uestion:

Does the First Amendment allow a newspaper or #roadcaster to assert defamatory

falsehoods a#out an individual who is neither a pu#lic official nor a pu#lic fi%ure/

Conclusion:

The Court reversed the lower court decision and held that 8ert$2s ri%hts had #eenviolated! 3ustice Powell ar%ued that the application of the 7ew 0or5 Times v! 'ullivan

standard in this case was inappropriate #ecause 8ert$ was neither a pu#lic official nor a

 pu#lic fi%ure! 1n the context of the opinion Powell advanced many lines of reasonin% to

esta#lish that ordinary citi$ens should #e allowed more protection from li#elous

7/21/2019 cases 2 civil liberties

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cases-2-civil-liberties 2/2

statements than individuals in the pu#lic eye! However continued Powell the actual

malice standard did not lose all si%nificance in cases involvin% ordinary citi$ens as he

advised states to use it in assessin% claims for punitive dama%es #y citi$ens suin% forli#el!