Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC
In 1964, WGCB, a radio station, carried a fifteen minute syndicated broadcast of a religious program called "Christian Crusade," in which the Reverend Billy James Hargis verbally attacked Fred J. Cook, author of the book Goldwater: Extremist on the Right.
The Court decreed that, with respect to matters of public importance, "the right of free speech of a broadcaster . . . does not embrace a right to snuff out the free speech of others."
In a closely related argument, the Court boldly declared the First Amendment right of the viewers and listeners to receive information as paramount to the First Amendment right of the broadcasters to freely provide information. The Court noted that "(i)t is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here. That right may not constitutionally be abridged either by Congress or by the FCC." The Court held that was fully consistent
with the First Amendment goal of producing an informed public capable of conducting its own affairs to require a broadcaster to permit answers to personal attacks occurring in the course of discussing controversial issues, or to require that the political opponents of those endorsed by the station be given a chance to communicate with the public.
The Red Lion Court, however, also acknowledged the political value of speech in producing an informed electorate to actively and effectively participate in a system of democratic self-rule.
Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo
In 1972, the Miami Herald printed two editorials that were critical of the candidacy of Pat Tornillo in his bid for the Florida House of Representatives. Pursuant to section 104.38 of the Florida Statutes, a right to reply statute solely benefiting candidates in an election, Tornillo demanded that the Miami Herald print verbatim his replies, but the paper refused.
After citing the burden on the publisher in terms of cost and time, the Court noted "that, as an economic reality, a newspaper (cannot) proceed to infinite expansion of its column space to accommodate the replies that a government agency determines or a statute commands Should Have available the reader. "
The Court reasoned That Such A penalty Would not only be impractical, But Would Also infringe upon the editorial Autonomy guaranteed by the First Amendment, by forcing newspapers to print" that which 'reason tells Them Should not be published. "'
Italian Law
In the event that the applicant requests a correction of the excessive length limit of thirty lines, is not obliged to publish the correction by the director, who did not the power and duty to reduce, summarize, or otherwise manipulate the text in order to contain the space limit required by law, it 'the court hearing in case of refusal of publication, puo' "ex officio" ordinare che sia pubblicato un testo ridotto entro il limite suddetto.
Tribunale Bari 16 gennaio 1992,
Il diritto alla rettifica delle notizie pubblicate costituisce fondamentale diritto della persona a tutelare la propria immagine e dignita'. Pertanto la rettifica va pubblicata conformemente a quanto richiesto, senza che ne' il direttore del giornale ne' il giudice abbiano facolta' di modificarne il testo, o anche di sindacarne il contenuto sotto il profilo della veridicita'.
Tribunale S.Maria Capua V., 22 gennaio 1999
La lunghezza massima di 30 righe, entro cui contenere (ai sensi dell'art. 42 legge n. 416 del 1981) la rettifica di notizie ritenute dall'interessato not correspond to the truth, it should be computed with respect to the line of the printed text to be rectified.
Bari District Court Jan. 18, 1983
not violate the mandatory provisions of Article .42, l.416/81 the publication of a correction followed by a comment made by which the giormalista reiterate the contents of your article
District Court Rome 10 July 1990
0 comments:
Post a Comment