Cohen v. Cowles Media Co.
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
|Cohen v. Cowles Media Co.|
|Court||U.S. Supreme Court|
|Citation||501 U.S. 663|
111 S. Ct. 2513 (1991)
|Date decided||June 24, 1991|
|Appealed from||Minnesota Supreme Court|
|Distinguished||Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell|
|Cited||Orr v. Orr|
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
|Related||Cohen v. Cowles Media Co. (Minn.)|
|majority||written by White|
joined by Rehnquist, Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy
|dissent||written by Blackmun|
joined by Marshall, Souter
|dissent||written by Souter|
joined by Marshall, Blackmun, O'Connor
Reversed and remanded.
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.
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?
The publication issued was true, and truthful speech should never be sanctioned according to the First Amendment.