-
Bill of Rights
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. -
Near v. Minnesota
This case helped the Supreme Court define freedom of the press and the concept of prior restraint. The Court ruled that the law kept certain information from being published - a concept called prior restraint -- and violated the First Amendment. This case helped establish the principle that the government can't censor or prohibit a publication in advance, with a few exceptions, even though the communication might be actionable in a future proceeding -
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
The Court held that the First Amendment protects the publication of all statements -- even those later proven false -- about the conduct of public officials unless they're made with actual malice, or knowledge that they're false or reckless. The Court dismissed Sullivan's case and established that publicly elected officials must prove an actual intent to harm in cases of libel or defamation. -
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School
In his concurring opinion, Justice Potter Stewart wrote that children are not necessarily guaranteed the full extent of First Amendment rights. Justice Byron R. White wrote a separate concurring opinion in which he noted that the majority's opinion relies on a distinction between communication through words and communication through action. -
Curtis Publishing v. Butts
In its 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court agreed to extend the reach of the Sullivan verdict to include public figures like national politicians, business tycoons and celebrities. Chief Justice Earl Warren reasoned there was "no basis in law, logic, or First Amendment policy" to differentiate between public officials and public figures -
Branzburg v. Hayes
This case ultimately decided that reporters must reveal information in a government investigation despite the information being learned in confidence. -
New York Times Co. vs. United States
This case is extremely important to journalists, as the court recognized the need to find a balance between the right to a free press and the need for the government to protect national security. The ruling in favor of the press places even more responsibility on the Fourth Estate, challenging journalists to use their freedoms wisely in their role as gatekeepers for disseminating information to the public. -
Gertz vs. Robert Welch, Inc
In this case, the Court set up a different standard for private individuals, saying that states themselves could define the appropriate standard of liability for a journalist who makes defamatory, false statements about a private individual -
Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart
The court felt that implementing prior restraint wouldn't affect the trial's outcome. Chief Justice Warren Burger reasoned that the "whole community should not be restrained from discussing a subject intimately affecting life within," thus protecting the press' responsibility to provide information of public interest -
Chandler v. Florida
This case helped clear the way for live courtroom TV shows, as well as the famous live coverage of the O.J Simpson and Rodney King trials. The question of cameras in the courtroom continues to a be a complicated one, as some people believe it an invasion of privacy of those involved in the case, and that excessive media coverage may distort judicial proceedings -
Cohen v. Cowles Media Co
It decided that the First Amendment doesn’t prevent a promissory estoppel suit against the press, ruling that Minnesota’s promissory estoppel law applied to individuals or institutions. In this case, the First Amendment didn’t protect the press from breaking a promise to its sources. -
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier
Two articles were removed from an issue because the principal found their content objectionable. One story was about teen pregnancy, and the other was about divorce. Cathy Kuhlmeier and two other students from the class sued the school, claiming their 1st Amendment rights had been violated.
