Miami Herald Publishing Company v. Tornillo: The Constitutional Distinction between Print and Broadcast Media

2 Pages Posted: 20 Jun 2013 Last revised: 22 Aug 2013

See all articles by Patrick M. Garry

Patrick M. Garry

University of South Dakota - School of Law

Date Written: 2006

Abstract

This brief article discusses the Supreme Court’s decision in Miami Herald Publishing Company v. Tornillo, where a unanimous Court struck down a state law granting a right to reply to political candidates whose personal character or official record have been attacked by newspapers. This right-of-reply statute permitted the attacked candidate to demand that the newspaper print free of charge any reply that the candidate wished to make to the newspaper’s editorial criticisms. By giving the print media a constitutionally protected editorial autonomy, Tornillo dramatically differed from the Court’s treatment of the broadcast media.

Keywords: Right-of-reply statute, newspaper editorial criticism, First Amendment

JEL Classification: K1, K3, K10, K30

Suggested Citation

Garry, Patrick M., Miami Herald Publishing Company v. Tornillo: The Constitutional Distinction between Print and Broadcast Media (2006). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2280784 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2280784

Patrick M. Garry (Contact Author)

University of South Dakota - School of Law ( email )

414 E. Clark Street
Vermillion, SD 57069
United States

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
43
Abstract Views
421
PlumX Metrics