|
|
Smith v. Daily Mail Pub. Co., 443 U.S. 97 (1979)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Smith v. Daily Mail Pub. Co., 443 U.S. 97 (1979)
Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co. No. 78-482 Argued March 20, 1979 Decided June 26, 1979 443 U.S. 97
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF
APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA
Syllabus
Respondent newspapers published articles containing the name of a juvenile who had been arrested for allegedly killing another youth. Respondents learned of the event and the name of the alleged assailant by monitoring the police band radio frequency and by asking various eyewitnesses. Respondents were indicted for violating a West Virginia statute which makes it a crime for a newspaper to publish, without the written approval of the juvenile court, the name of any youth charged as a juvenile offender. The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals granted a writ of prohibition against petitioners, the prosecuting attorney and the Circuit Judges of Kanawha County, W.Va., holding that the statute on which the indictment was based violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Held: The State cannot, consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, punish the truthful publication of an alleged juvenile delinquent’s name lawfully obtained by a newspaper. The asserted state interest in protecting the anonymity of the juvenile offender to further his rehabilitation cannot justify the statute’s imposition of criminal sanctions for publication of a juvenile’s name lawfully obtained. Pp. 101-106.
(a) Whether the statute is viewed as a prior restraint by authorizing the juvenile judge to permit publication or as a penal sanction for publishing lawfully obtained, truthful information is not dispositive, because even the latter action requires the highest form of state interest to sustain its validity. When a state attempts to punish publication after the event, it must demonstrate that its punitive action was necessary to further the state interests asserted. Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829. Pp. 101-104.
(b) Respondents’ First Amendment rights prevail over the State’s interest in protecting juveniles. Cf. Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308. Even assuming that the statute served a state interest of the highest order, the statute does not accomplish its stated purpose, since it does not restrict the electronic media or any form of publication except "newspapers." Pp. 104-105.
___ W.Va. ___, 248 S.E.2d 269, affirmed.
BURGER, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BRENNAN, STEWART, WHITE, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. REHNQUIST, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 106. POWELL, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Smith v. Daily Mail Pub. Co., 443 U.S. 97 (1979) in 443 U.S. 97 443 U.S. 98. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=9I2V41U3GN92P2I.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Smith v. Daily Mail Pub. Co., 443 U.S. 97 (1979), in 443 U.S. 97, page 443 U.S. 98. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=9I2V41U3GN92P2I.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Smith v. Daily Mail Pub. Co., 443 U.S. 97 (1979). cited in 1979, 443 U.S. 97, pp.443 U.S. 98. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=9I2V41U3GN92P2I.
|