The right to freedom of speech is a cherished founding principle in the United States. Protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution, it grants Americans the freedom to express their opinions, criticize the government, and voice their thoughts without the threat of censorship or persecution.
While the notion of freedom of speech appears straightforward, there are intricate boundaries that define which forms of speech are protected and in which contexts.
Let's delve into an informed overview of the ten most significant Supreme Court cases that pertain to freedom of speech, which is one of the fundamental aspects protected by the First Amendment.
Near v. Minnesota (1931)
This particular case played a significant role in the Supreme Court's interpretation of freedom of the press and the notion of prior restraint. When Jay Near, an editor at a Minneapolis newspaper, criticized local officials by accusing them of having connections with criminals in a written publication, Minnesota authorities sought a court order to prevent Near from releasing his paper based on state legislation. According to the law, individuals who published a newspaper article deemed "malicious, scandalous, and defamatory" were considered a nuisance and could be prohibited from disseminating such content.
The Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether the Minnesota law impeded the freedom of the press. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the law prevented specific information from being published, a concept known as prior restraint, thereby violating the First Amendment. This case served to establish the principle that the government cannot engage in pre-censorship or prohibition of a publication, with a few exceptions, even if the content may be subject to legal action in the future.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
Do high school students have protection under the freedom of speech? When Robert E. Reynolds, the principal of Hazelwood East High School, reviewed the proofs of the school newspaper called the Spectrum, he identified two articles as inappropriate and prevented their publication. Cathy Kuhlmeier and two other students involved in the newspaper staff challenged the principal's actions in court, arguing that it violated their First Amendment rights.
In a 5-3 ruling, the Court determined that schools should have the ability to establish high standards for speech that is disseminated under their supervision. It was also stated that schools possessed the right to decline support for speech that was "inconsistent with the shared values of a civilized social order." The Court concluded that the educators did not infringe upon the students' First Amendment rights as long as their actions were "reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns."
Branzburg v. Hayes (1971)
Should reporters be compelled to disclose confidential information?
Paul Branzburg, a reporter, conducted interviews with drug users in a two-county region in Kentucky and published an article in the Louisville Courier-Journal. He was summoned twice to provide testimony regarding his sources before state grand juries investigating drug-related crimes, but he refused. The question brought before the Supreme Court was whether compelling a reporter to testify before a grand jury violated their freedom of speech and press.
The Supreme Court determined that the privilege known as "reporter's privilege" does not apply when a reporter's confidential information is of significant and overriding state interest, cannot be obtained through alternative means, and contains specific details about specific criminal activities. In essence, requiring a reporter to testify before a grand jury does not infringe upon their First Amendment rights. The fact that reporters receive information in confidence does not grant them the right to withhold that information during a government investigation. Similar to private citizens, reporters are often obligated to share information they have learned in confidence if summoned to testify in court.
Cohen v. Cowles Media Co. (1982)
Dan Cohen, an associate involved in the 1982 Minnesota gubernatorial campaign of Wheelock Whitney, shared court records related to the Democratic candidate for lieutenant governor with several newspapers in St. Paul and Minneapolis. Although the newspapers had assured him of confidentiality, they revealed his identity. Consequently, Cohen was terminated from his position, leading him to file a lawsuit against the Cowles Media Company in state court, alleging a breach of contract. He was awarded compensatory damages, a decision that was upheld by the state appellate court. However, the Minnesota Supreme Court later overturned the ruling, stating that Cohen's claim relied on the state's promissory estoppel law, which prevents the breaking of a promise. The court concluded that the First Amendment's protection of freedom of the press prevented the application of promissory estoppel to the newspapers.
The Supreme Court addressed the question of whether the First Amendment prohibits a source from seeking damages if a newspaper fails to fulfill its promise of confidentiality.
In its decision, the Supreme Court declared that the First Amendment does not shield the press from a promissory estoppel lawsuit, affirming that Minnesota's promissory estoppel law applies to both individuals and institutions. In this particular case, the First Amendment did not grant immunity to the press for breaking a promise made to its sources.
Chandler v. Florida (1981)
Have you ever wondered why judges permit cameras in courtrooms?
In a notable case in Miami Beach, two men were found guilty by a jury of various charges, including conspiracy to commit burglary and possession of burglary tools, for breaking into a local restaurant. This case, involving Miami Beach police officers as defendants, attracted significant public attention and media scrutiny. The officers raised objections to the presence of the media, arguing that it would impede a fair trial. However, the trial court had already approved the use of cameras in the courtroom for experimental purposes, and the officers were ultimately convicted. The U.S. Supreme Court deliberated on whether the presence of cameras violated the defendants' right to a fair trial under the 6th and 14th Amendments, ultimately affirming the trial court's decision.
Subsequently, the majority of federal and state courts have allowed cameras in courtrooms. This case played a crucial role in paving the way for live courtroom television shows, including the well-known coverage of the O.J. Simpson and Rodney King trials. However, the question of cameras in the courtroom remains complex, as some individuals argue that it invades the privacy of those involved in the case and that excessive media coverage may distort the judicial proceedings.
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964)
In the tumultuous period of the early 1960s, a full-page advertisement was published in the New York Times. This ad asserted that the arrest of Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. for perjury in Montgomery, Alabama, was part of a larger campaign to undermine King's efforts towards integrating public facilities and promoting African American voting rights. In response, Montgomery city commissioner L.B. Sullivan initiated a libel lawsuit against the newspaper and four black ministers who had endorsed the advertisement. Sullivan claimed that the allegations made against the Montgomery police had personally defamed him. According to Alabama law, Sullivan did not have to prove any harm to his reputation; the ad contained factual errors that invalidated a defense based on truth. The central question presented to the Court was whether Alabama's libel law infringed upon the First Amendment's protection of freedom of speech and the press.
The Court ruled that the First Amendment safeguards the publication of all statements, even if they are later proven to be false, concerning the conduct of public officials, unless they are made with actual malice or with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth. The Court dismissed Sullivan's case and established the principle that elected public officials must demonstrate an actual intent to cause harm in cases of libel or defamation.
Curtis Publishing v. Butts (1966) Following the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan case, two cases emerged in the early 1960s on Southern college campuses, presenting the Supreme Court with questions regarding the application of the actual malice standard to public figures.
In one case, the Saturday Evening Post, a publication by Curtis Publishing Company, published an article accusing Wally Butts, who served as the athletic director for the University of Georgia, of conspiring to manipulate the outcome of a 1962 football game between Georgia and its rival, the University of Alabama. The article alleged that Butts had provided Georgia's plays to the coach of Alabama, Paul "Bear" Bryant. Butts filed a defamation lawsuit, and a trial court ruled in his favor. Shortly after the Times vs. Sullivan ruling, Curtis requested a new trial, arguing that the actual malice standard established in that case should have been applied. However, the question arose whether Curtis, as a non-elected public official, fell under the same standard.
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court determined that the principles set forth in the Sullivan verdict should be extended to encompass public figures, including national politicians, prominent business figures, and celebrities. Chief Justice Earl Warren argued that there was no legal, logical, or First Amendment policy basis to differentiate between public officials and public figures in this context.
Gertz vs. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974)
Robert Welch, Inc., the publisher of American Opinion, a magazine known for promoting the ultraconservative views of the John Birch Society, made claims suggesting that Communist sympathizers were attempting to frame police officers. This sparked a legal case that established the definition of libel concerning private individuals. The case unfolded when Chicago police officer Robert Nuccio was convicted of a young man's murder, and local attorney Elmer Gertz represented the victim's family in a civil lawsuit. An article in the magazine contained several factual inaccuracies about Gertz, falsely implying his involvement in framing Nuccio.
Gertz filed a defamation lawsuit, and initially, the trial court ruled that Gertz needed to prove that the magazine acted with actual malice since the article addressed significant public matters. Gertz argued that, as a private individual rather than a public figure, he only needed to demonstrate negligence or fault.
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court concluded that a private individual does not have to prove actual malice to establish libel, even when the defamatory statements pertain to public issues. The Court made a distinction between public and private individuals within the realm of defamation law, noting that "private persons are more vulnerable to injury, and the state's interest in protecting them is correspondingly greater." The Court reasoned that public officials and public figures have greater access to the media and can effectively counter false statements, unlike private individuals.
Through this case, the Supreme Court established a different standard for private individuals, indicating that states have the authority to define the appropriate level of liability for journalists who make false and defamatory statements about private individuals.
New York Times Co. vs. United States (1971)
In 1971, amidst intense national debate over the Vietnam War, the New York Times obtained a confidential Defense Department report containing discussions about the war, which later became known as the Pentagon Papers.
Upon the request of the U.S. government, a district court issued a temporary injunction to prevent the New York Times from publishing the documents, citing potential harm to national security. The Times appealed the decision, arguing that such prior restraint violated the First Amendment, which protects freedom of the press.
The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 ruling, sided with the Times. However, Chief Justice Warren Burger expressed dissent, acknowledging the clash between the imperative of an unrestricted press and the effective functioning of a complex government. While questioning the wisdom of publishing highly classified intelligence, he respected the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom and recognized the complexity of such cases: "Only those who view the First Amendment as an absolute in all circumstances -- a view I respect, but reject -- can find such cases as these to be simple or easy."
This case holds immense significance for journalists, as the court acknowledged the need to strike a balance between the freedom of the press and the government's duty to protect national security. The ruling places a greater responsibility on the press as gatekeepers of information, urging journalists to exercise their freedoms thoughtfully in their role of disseminating information to the public.
