Press Freedoms
Print versus Cable, Broadcast and Internet
Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo (1974)
418 U.S. 241 (1974)
Vote: 9-0
Decision: Reversed
Majority: Burger joined by Brennan, Douglas, White, Stewart, Blackmun, Marshall, Powell, Rehnquist
Concurrence: Brennan, joined by Rehnquist
Concurrence: White
CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE [UNANIMOUS] COURT.
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.
In the fall of 1972, appellee … was a candidate for the Florida House of Representatives. On September 20, 1972, and again on September 29, 1972, appellant printed editorials critical of appellee’s candidacy. In response to these editorials, appellee demanded that appellant print verbatim his replies … Appellant declined to print the appellee’s replies, and appellee brought suit … seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and actual and punitive damages in excess of $5,000. The action was premised on Florida Statute §104.38 (1973), a “right of reply” statute which provides that if a candidate for nomination or election is assailed regarding his personal character or official record by any newspaper, the candidate has the right to demand that the newspaper print, free of cost to the candidate, any reply the candidate may make to the newspaper’s charges. The reply must appear in as conspicuous a place and in the same kind of type as the charges which prompted the reply, provided it does not take up more space than the charges. Failure to comply with the statute constitutes a first-degree misdemeanor. Appellant sought a declaration that §104.38 was unconstitutional. After an emergency hearing requested by appellee, the Circuit Court denied injunctive relief because, absent special circumstances, no injunction could properly issue against the commission of a crime and held that 104.38 was unconstitutional as an infringement on the freedom of the press under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. The Circuit Court concluded that dictating what a newspaper must print was no different from dictating what it must not print. The Circuit Judge viewed the statute’s vagueness as serving “to restrict and stifle protected expression …
On direct appeal, the Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that 104.38 did not violate constitutional guarantees. It held that free speech was enhanced and not abridged by the Florida right-of-reply statute, which in that court’s view, furthered the “broad societal interest in the free flow of information to the public.” It also held that the statute is not impermissibly vague; the statute informs “those who are subject to it as to what conduct on their part will render them liable to its penalties.” Civil remedies, including damages, were held to be available under this statute; the case was remanded to the trial court for furth