Free Speech

Case - 413 U.S. 376

Parties: Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Com. on Human Relations

Date: 1973-06-21

Identifiers:

Opinions:

Segment Sets:

Paragraph: 64 - Whatever validity the Chrestensen case may still retain when limited to its own facts, it certainly does not stand for the proposition hat the advertising pages of a newspaper are outside the protection given the newspaper by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Notes:

Preferred Terms:

  • (is) advertisements in a newspaper

Phrase match:

Source: http://freespeech.iath.virginia.edu/exist-speech/cocoon/freespeech/FOS_newSTerms_One?doc=/db/fos_all/federal/SC/1970s/19730621.413.US.376.xml&keyword1=right of&wordsBefore=1&wordsAfter=3#m1

Search time: 2018-03-15 12:38:56 Searcher: clm6u Editor: ars9ef Segmenter: ars9ef

Paragraph: 45 - In any event, I believe the First Amendment freedom of press includes the right of a newspaper to arrange the content of its paper, whether it be news items, editorials, or advertising, as it sees fit.

Notes:

Preferred Terms:

  • (is) advertisements in newspaper

Phrase match: the right of a newspaper to

Source: http://freespeech.iath.virginia.edu/exist-speech/cocoon/freespeech/FOS_newSTerms_One?doc=/db/fos_all/federal/SC/1970s/19730621.413.US.376.xml&keyword1=right of&wordsBefore=1&wordsAfter=3#m1

Search time: 2018-03-15 12:38:56 Searcher: clm6u Editor: ars9ef Segmenter: ars9ef

Paragraph: 53 - But I believe that Pittsburgh Press by reason of the First Amendment may publish what it pleases about any law without censorship or restraint by Government. The First Amendment does not require the press to reflect any ideological or political creed reflecting the dominant philosophy, whether transient or fixed. It may use its pages and facilities to denounce a law and urge its repeal or, at the other extreme, denounce those who do not respect its letter and spirit.

Notes:

Preferred Terms:

  • (is) press
  • (is) publishing about laws

Phrase match: any law without censorship or restraint by

Source: http://freespeech.iath.virginia.edu/exist-speech/cocoon/freespeech/FOS_newSTerms_One?doc=/db/fos_all/federal/SC/1970s/19730621.413.US.376.xml&keyword1=censorship&wordsBefore=3&wordsAfter=3#m1

Search time: 2018-03-29 14:11:32 Searcher: clm6u Editor: ars9ef tcs9pk Segmenter: ars9ef tcs9pk

Paragraph: 33 - N79* The present order does not endanger arguably protected speech. Because the order is based on a continuing course of repetitive conduct, this is not a case in which the Court is asked to speculate as to the effect of publication. Cf. New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 91 S.Ct. 2140, 29 L.Ed.2d 822 (1971). Moreover, the order is clear and sweeps no more broadly than necessary. And because no interim relief was granted, the order will not have gone into effect before our final determination that the actions of Pittsburgh Press were unprotected.

Notes:

  • N79* / / / / the order mentioned is a ban on sex discrimination in job ads

Preferred Terms:

  • (is) speech

Phrase match:

Source: http://freespeech.iath.virginia.edu/exist-speech/cocoon/freespeech/FOS_newSTerms_One?doc=/db/fos_all/federal/SC/1970s/19730621.413.US.376.xml&keyword1= speech protected speech&wordsBefore=&wordsAfter=#m1

Search time: 2018-04-12 08:37:53 Searcher: clm6u Editor: ars9ef tcs9pk Segmenter: ars9ef tcs9pk