Difference between revisions of "Miami Herald v. Tornillo"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (Reverted edits by Xanadu3 (Talk) to last revision by FernoKlump) |
DavidB4-bot (talk | contribs) (→top: clean up & uniformity) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Justices [[William Brennan]] and [[William Rehnquist]] concurred to emphasize that this holding did not affect "right of retraction" statutes that require newspapers to retract errors. | Justices [[William Brennan]] and [[William Rehnquist]] concurred to emphasize that this holding did not affect "right of retraction" statutes that require newspapers to retract errors. | ||
[[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]] | [[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]] | ||
| − | [[ | + | [[Category:First Amendment]] |
Latest revision as of 06:57, June 27, 2016
In Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241, 258 (1974) a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a right-of-reply state statute that required newspapers to print the reply of a candidate for public office whose personal character has been criticized by that newspaper's editorials.
The First Amendment erects a virtually insurmountable barrier between government and the print media so far as government tampering, in advance of publication, with news and editorial content is concerned.
Justices William Brennan and William Rehnquist concurred to emphasize that this holding did not affect "right of retraction" statutes that require newspapers to retract errors.