Cohen v. Cowles Media (1991)

From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
Revision as of 20:38, January 31, 2020 by Rezsue (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{Infobox Case Brief |court=U.S. Supreme Court |citation=501 U.S. 663 *111 S. Ct. 2513 (1991) |date=June 24, 1991 |subject=Contracts |distinguished=Hustler Magazine Inc. v. Fa...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Cohen v. Cowles Media (1991)
Court U.S. Supreme Court
Citation 501 U.S. 663
111 S. Ct. 2513 (1991)
Date decided June 24, 1991
Distinguished Hustler Magazine Inc. v. Falwell
Cited Orr v. Orr, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan

|- cellpadding="10" border="1" !majority |written by White
joined by Rehnquist, Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy |- |- cellpadding="10" border="1" !dissent |written by Blackmun
joined by Marshall, Souter |- |- cellpadding="10" border="1" !dissent |written by Souter
joined by Marshall, Blackmun, O'Connor |- Holding:

Reversed and remanded.


Rules:

Generally applicable laws do not offend the First Amendment simply because their enforcement against the press has incidental effects on its ability to gather and report the news.The information published must be lawfully acquired. The First Amendment does not confer upon the press a constitutional right to disregard promises that would otherwise be enforced under state law.


Issue:

Does the First Amendment bar a plaintiff from recovering damages, under state promissory estoppel law, for a newspaper's breach of a promise of confidentiality?


Dissent

The publication issued was true, and truthful speech should never be sanctioned according to the First Amendment.