When it came to the govenment’s right of reply and the fairness doctrine, Maimi Herald v. Tormillo (1974) overruled both doctrines in favor of the First Amendment right of the press.
Now, here’s the facts. Pat Tormillo (Appellee), a political candidate, wanted a “right of reply” to a Miami Herald news article, which was critical of him. After being unsuccessful at getting his reply, Tormillo filed suit in court to force the Florida Maimi Herald to give him his right, which was guaranteed to him under Florida law.
Here’s the issue of Mami Herald v. Tormilo. In this case, the Supreme Court had to decide if the “right of reply” statute is valid, because it limited a newspapers’ rights.
When it come to a holding, here was the rule. The Supreme Court reversed the Florida “right of reply” statute because it violated the First Amendment right of freedom of press.
Chief Justice Warren E. Burger gave the majority opinion in this case. In his opinion, he discussed Justice Oliver Holmes’ “marketplace of ideas,” which said the marketplace should decide which ideas are valid and which ones are not. That being said, Justice Berger acknowledged “media consolidation and barriers to entry in the newspaper industry” were risks in this decision; however, the Florida statue was “an intrusion on the function of editors.”
In this case, Justice Berger has some interesting comments about the right of reply statute. He said the Florida statute “limits the variety of public debate”. Basically, the Florida government’s right of reply worked against public debate. He cited New York Times v. Sullivan in regards to this comment.
After this case, political radio talk shows began to rise in the news media. You saw a proliferation of conservative radio talk shows aimed at conservative audiences. As well, you saw the spread of liberal talk radio shows. The market place of ideas started to cater to both sides of the political spectrum.
In conclusion, this case reversed Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC, which said upheld the right of reply and the fairness docrtine. Now, editors did not have to reserve space in their newspapers because they had editorial judgment; that being said, the government could not order them to give a right of reply based on the fairness doctrine, which favored a diversity of views. Miami Herald v. Tormillo, under the First Amendment, is a famous case for reversing the right of reply in newspapers and the fairness doctrine.