Discover published sets by community

The case established the 'actual malice' standard, which shielded the press from libel suits unless false information was published knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth. This case significantly protected freedom of the press, particularly pertaining to comment on public figures.

The Supreme Court ruled that the government could not prevent the New York Times or the Washington Post from publishing classified documents related to the Vietnam War, reinforcing the principle of prior restraint and freedom of the press.

The Supreme Court ruled that a public figure could not recover damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress without showing the publication contained a false statement made with actual malice. It emphasized the importance of protecting satirical or parody content as free speech.

The outcome of this case created the 'Miller test' for determining what constitutes obscene material not protected by the First Amendment. It set standards for regulating indecent materials and had a profound impact on censorship laws.

The case resulted in allowing corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts on political campaigns, fundamentally changing campaign finance regulation and raising ethical questions about the influence of money in politics.

The court ruled against Food Lion, primarily granting that the undercover filming practices of ABC did not amount to trespassing. This case impacted the ethical considerations of journalists' undercover investigations.

This decision upheld the fairness doctrine, stating that broadcasters could be required to present a balanced and fair discussion of public issues. It had a significant impact on the regulation of broadcasting content, though the doctrine was later revoked in 1987.

The Court held that the media could not be sanctioned for publishing information of public importance that was illegally intercepted by a third party, as long as the publishers did not participate in the interception. This case underscores the ethical balance between privacy and freedom of the press.

The court ruled that bloggers have the same First Amendment protections as traditional journalists when it comes to defamation claims. This decision reaffirmed the function of the press to the wider class of online content creators.

The Supreme Court decided in favor of students wearing armbands in protest against the Vietnam War, establishing that neither students nor teachers shed their First Amendment rights at the schoolhouse gate, which includes school publications.

The Court struck down Florida's right to reply statute, underscoring that the government may not force a newspaper to publish replies from political candidates whom it had criticized, enhancing editorial control and autonomy.

The case extended the New York Times actual malice standard to privacy cases, requiring public figures to show actual malice in order to prevail in an invasion of privacy lawsuit when matters of public concern are at issue.

The judgment led to a clarification that private individuals have more protection from defamatory falsehoods than public figures, and it preserves some space for states to define defamation laws.

The outcome restricted a media company's ability to invade the privacy of individuals, setting a precedent for how the media can document private citizens' lives without their consent.

The Supreme Court in this case held that states could not impose sanctions on media outlets for publishing information obtained from publicly available court documents. This decision protected freedoms regarding the reporting of judicial proceedings.

The decision allowed plaintiffs in libel cases to inquire into the editorial process of the defendant, a move which has implications for the autonomy of the editorial process and could potentially lead to a chilling effect on speech.

The ruling here asserted that pre-trial gag orders infringe upon the freedom of the press. It required courts to consider the effect of such orders not just on the defendant's right to a fair trial but also on the media's right to report.

The Supreme Court recognized a right to the commercial value of a performance, ruling that broadcasters could be liable for airing an entire act without permission. It outlined the right of publicity and how it can conflict with free speech and press.

The case decided that the First Amendment does not relieve a journalist from testifying in grand jury investigations. This has implications for reporters' privilege and the ability of journalists to protect confidential sources.