# Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo

> Supreme Court of the United States · June 25, 1974 · 418 U.S. 241

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9425808

## Case

- **Full name:** Miami Herald Publishing Co., Division of Knight Newspapers, Inc. v. Tornillo
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** June 25, 1974
- **Citations:** 418 U.S. 241; 1 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1898; 94 S. Ct. 2831; 41 L. Ed. 2d 730; 1974 U.S. LEXIS 86
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Brennan
- **Judges:** Burger, Brennan, White, Rehnquist
- **Cited by:** 552 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/9425808

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that “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”; noting that the “statute exacts a penalty on the basis of the content of a newspaper” …
- holding that “the choice of material to 11 go into a newspaper, and the decisions made as to limitations on the size and content of the paper, 12 and treatment of public issues and public officials—whether fair or unfair—constitute the exercise 13 of editorial control and judg…
- holding that a Florida statute ■ requiring newspapers to grant political candidates equal space to answer criticism in the newspaper was unconstitutional, even though “the statute in question here has not prevented the Miami Herald from saying anything it wished”
- holding that Florida right-of-reply statute violated the First Amendment because it compelled newspaper editors or publishers to publish that which reason tells them should not be published and that this was a penalty based on the content of the newspaper
- holding that a privately-owned newspaper “is more than a passive receptacle or conduit for news, comment, and advertising” and “[t]he choice of material to go into a newspaper . . . constitute[s] the exercise of editorial control and judgment.”

## Opinion text

Mr. Justice Brennan,
with whom Mr. Justice Rehnquist joins,
concurring.
I join the Court’s opinion which, as I understand it, addresses only “right of reply” statutes and implies no view upon the constitutionality of “retraction” statutes affording plaintiffs able to prove defamatory falsehoods a statutory action to require publication of a retraction. *259 See generally Note, Vindication of the Reputation of a Public Official, 80 Harv. L. Rev. 1730 , 1739-1747 (1967).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9425808. Public record. Not legal advice.