Upload
roadcrash1
View
220
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Civil liberties Baruch
Citation preview
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!