# Craig v. Harney

> Supreme Court of the United States · October 15, 1947 · 331 U.S. 367

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9420008

## Case

- **Full name:** CRAIG Et Al. v. HARNEY, SHERIFF
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** October 15, 1947
- **Citations:** 331 U.S. 367; 67 S. Ct. 1249; 91 L. Ed. 1546; 1947 U.S. LEXIS 2266
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Murphy
- **Judges:** Douglas, Murphy, Frankfurter, Jackson, Reed
- **Cited by:** 557 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9420008

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that a publisher, a writer, and a reporter could not be held in contempt for printing accounts of proceedings in a civil trial, because “[a] trial is a public event [and] [w]hat transpires in the court room is public property5’
- holding judge may not hold individual in contempt simply for using “strong language” or “intemperate language”

## Opinion text

Mr. Justice Murphy,
concurring.
While joining in the opinion of the Court, I believe that the importance of the problem raised by this case cannot be overemphasized. A free press lies at the heart of our democracy and its preservation is essential to the survival of liberty. Any inroad made upon the constitutional protection of a free press tends to undermine the freedom of all men to print and to read the truth.
In my view, the Constitution forbids a judge from summarily punishing a newspaper editor for printing an unjust attack upon him or his method of dispensing justice. The only possible exception is in the rare instance where the attack might reasonably cause a real impediment to the administration of justice. Unscrupulous and vindictive criticism of the judiciary is regrettable. But judges must not retaliate by a summary suppression of such criticism for they are bound by the command of the First Amendment. Any summary suppression of unjust criticism carries with it an ominous threat of summary suppression of all criticism. It is to avoid that threat that the First Amendment, as I view it, outlaws the summary contempt method of suppression.
Silence and a steady devotion to duty are the best answers to irresponsible criticism; and those judges who feel the need for giving a more visible demonstration of *384 their feelings may take advantage of various laws passed for that purpose which do not impinge upon a free press. The liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment, however, are too highly prized to be subjected to the hazards of summary contempt procedure.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9420008. Public record. Not legal advice.