-
Near v. Minnesota
Near v. Minnesota was a Supreme Court case that upheld the Freedom of the Press, and dissolved a Minnesota law that banned the publishing of malicious or scandalous materiral. The law, while preventing defamatory writings, was found to be unconstitutional on the grounds that it was a form of censorship. -
Lovell v. City of Griffon
Lovell v. City of Griffon was a Supreme Court case that dealt with a law requiring the sanction of the City of Griffon in order to distribute any kind of literature. The defendant, Alma Lovell, was arrested for for distributing free religious literature without this permission. She claimed the city law was unconstitutional, and violated her First Amendment rights. The Supreme court ruled in her favor, and the city law was removed. -
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan was a Supreme court case in which a newspaper, The New York Times, was sued for defamation and libel in one of it's articles, which reported on the civil rights movement in the south. The First Amendment protected the freedom of the press, except under situations of defamation. While the article in the Times did contain wrong and somewhat embelished information, the Supreme court sided with the newspaper on the grounds that the article was not of malicious intent. -
Garrison v. Louisiana
Garrison v. Louisiana was a case in which a man at his newspaper's press conference accused his local judges of laziness and inefficiency. He was sued by the state on the grounds that his statements were criminal libel and defamation. However, the court found that his statements were protected under the First Amendment because it was not made with reckless disregard for the truth. -
Estes v. Texas
Estes v. Texas was a Supreme Court case in which the conviction had to be overturned based on the fact that the press had been allowed to fully broadcast coverage on the trial, which the court found to have infringed on his rights to a fair trial. This case had the effect of limiting the Freedom of the press by banning the broadcast and coverage of trials by the press, however this was overturned 16 years later. -
New York Times Co. v. United States
New York Times Co. v. United States a landmark case concerning the New York Times newspaper's intended publishing of classified Pentagon documents, which had been condemned by then president Richard Nixon. Nixon claimed the authority to force the Times to suspend it's publication. However, the Supreme Court found that the First Amendment protected the newspaper, and that the executive authority was subordinate to the Constitution. -
Branzburg v. Hayes
Branzburg v. Hayes was a court case in which a reporter who wrote articles concerning drug use was summoned before a jury and asked to give information on any illegal activities that he had witnessed while gathering information for his articles. He refused, citing the First Amendment as protection from having to cite his information sources. However, the court found that the Amendment did not grant the press a reportorial advantage in court. -
Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co.
Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co. was a case in which a reporter filmed and broadcast on television a circus performer's act without his consent, and was sued by the performer. The court held that the the broadcasting company was not protected under the Freedom of the Press because the performer's livelyhood depended on income from customers who paid to see the act, and that broadcasting the entire act on television financially damaged the performer. -
Arkansas Writers' Project v. Ragland
Arkansas Writers' Project v. Ragland was a Supreme court case in which a small magazine company was being taxed under a very selective Arkansas tax law that taxed publications based on content. The Supreme court found the Arkansas law to be unconstitutional on the grounds that it violated the First Amendment as a form of censorship. -
Hustler v. Falwell
Hustler v. Falwell was a court case that dealt with a comic, or parody, of a public figure that was published in a magazine. The public figure in question, a televangelist named Jerry Falwell, sued the magazine for damages. The court found the parody to be within the law, on the grounds that the public could not reasonably assume the parody to be true, and found it under the protection of the First Amendment.