# Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations

> Supreme Court of the United States · October 9, 1973 · 413 U.S. 376

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9425408

## Case

- **Full name:** PITTSBURGH PRESS CO. v. PITTSBURGH COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** October 9, 1973
- **Citations:** 413 U.S. 376; 93 S. Ct. 2553; 37 L. Ed. 2d 669; 1973 U.S. LEXIS 150
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Blackmun
- **Judges:** Powell, Bkennan, White, Marshall, Rehnquist, Burger, Douglas, Stewart, Blackmun
- **Cited by:** 571 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/9425408

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating the Supreme Court “has never held that all injunctions are impermissible” and noting that “[t]he special vice of a prior restraint is that communication will be suppressed . . . before an adequate determination that it is unprotected by the First Amendment"
- holding that discriminatory advertisements are illegal commercial speech entitled to no First Amendment protection
- holding that speech involving a “proposal of possible employment” is commercial speech
- holding that ordinance making it unlawful to “aid” sexually discriminatory employment practices could be constitutionally applied to bar newspaper advertisements for sex-designated employment
- emphasizing that “nothing in our holding allows government at any level to forbid Pittsburgh Press to publish and distribute advertisements commenting on the Ordinance, the enforcement practices of the Commission, or the propriety of sex preferences in employment”

## Opinion text

Mr. Justice Blackmun,
dissenting.
I dissent substantially for the reasons stated by Mr. Justice Stewart in his opinion. But I do not subscribe to the statements contained in that paragraph of his opinion which begins on p. 402 and ends on p. 403.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9425408. Public record. Not legal advice.