SMITH V. DAILY MAIL PUB. CO.
| Citation | 443 U. S. 97 |
| Decision Date | 26 June 1979 |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF
APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA
Respondent newspapers published articles containing the name of a juvenile who had been arrested for allegedly killing another youth. Respondents learned of the event and the name of the alleged assailant by monitoring the police band radio frequency and by asking various eyewitnesses. Respondents were indicted for violating a West Virginia statute which makes it a crime for a newspaper to publish, without the written approval of the juvenile court, the name of any youth charged as a juvenile offender. The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals granted a writ of prohibition against petitioners, the prosecuting attorney and the Circuit Judges of Kanawha County, W.Va., holding that the statute on which the indictment was based violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Held: The State cannot, consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, punish the truthful publication of an alleged juvenile delinquent's name lawfully obtained by a newspaper. The asserted state interest in protecting the anonymity of the juvenile offender to further his rehabilitation cannot justify the statute's imposition of criminal sanctions for publication of a juvenile's name lawfully obtained. P P. 101-106.
(a) Whether the statute is viewed as a prior restraint by authorizing the juvenile judge to permit publication or as a penal sanction for publishing lawfully obtained, truthful information is not dispositive, because even the latter action requires the highest form of state interest to sustain its validity. When a state attempts to punish publication after the event, it must demonstrate that its punitive action was necessary to further the state interests asserted. Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U. S. 829. P P. 101-104.
(b) Respondents' First Amendment rights prevail over the State's interest in protecting juveniles. Cf. Davis v. Alaska, 415 U. S. 308. Even assuming that the statute served a state interest of the highest order, the statute does not accomplish its stated purpose, since it does not restrict the electronic media or any form of publication except "newspapers." P P. 104-105.
___ W.Va. ___, 248 S.E.2d 269, affirmed.
POWELL, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
We granted certiorari to consider whether a West Virginia statute violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution by making it a crime for a newspaper to publish, without the written approval of the juvenile court, the name of any youth charged as a juvenile offender.
(1)
The challenged West Virginia statute provides:
"[N]or shall the name of any child, in connection with any proceedings under this chapter, be published in any newspaper without a written order of the court. . . ."
W.Va.Code § 49-7-3 (1976); and:
On February 9, 1978, a 15-year-old student was shot and killed at Hayes Junior High School in St. Albans, W.Va., a small community located about 13 miles outside of Charleston, W.Va. The alleged assailant, a 14-year-old classmate, was identified by seven different eyewitnesses and was arrested by police soon after the incident.
The Charleston Daily Mail and the Charleston Gazette, respondents here, learned of the shooting by monitoring routinely the police band radio frequency; they immediately dispatched reporters and photographers to the junior high school. The reporters for both papers obtained the name of the alleged assailant simply by asking various witnesses, the police, and an assistant prosecuting attorney who were at the school.
The staffs of both newspapers prepared articles for publication about the incident. The Daily Mail's first article appeared in its February 9 afternoon edition. The article did not mention the alleged attacker's name. The editorial decision to omit the name was made because of the statutory prohibition against publication without prior court approval.
The Gazette made a contrary editorial decision, and published the juvenile's name and picture in an article about the shooting that appeared in the February 10 morning edition of the paper. In addition, the name of the alleged juvenile attacker was broadcast over at least three different radio station on February 9 and 10. Since the information had become
public knowledge, the Daily Mail decided to include the juvenile's name in an article in its afternoon paper on February 10.
On March 1, an indictment against the respondents was returned by a grand jury. The indictment alleged that each knowingly published the name of a youth involved in a juvenile proceeding in violation of W.Va.Code § 49-7-3 (1976). Respondents then filed an original jurisdiction petition with the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, seeking a writ of prohibition against the prosecuting attorney and the Circuit Court Judges of Kanawha County, petitioners here. Respondents alleged that the indictment was based on a statute that violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and several provisions of the State's Constitution and requested an order prohibiting the county officials from taking any action on the indictment.
The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals issued the writ of prohibition. ___ W.Va. ___, 248 S.E.2d 269 (1978). Relying on holdings of this Court, it held that the statute abridged the freedom of the press. The court reasoned that the statute operated as a prior restraint on speech, and that the State's interest in protecting the identity of the juvenile offender did not overcome the heavy presumption against the constitutionality of such prior restraints.
We granted certiorari. 439 U.S. 963 (1978).
(2)
Respondents urge this Court to hold that, because § 49-7-3 requires court approval prior to publication of the juvenile's name it operates as a "prior restraint" on speech. [Footnote 1] See Nebraska
Press Assn: v. Stuart, 427 U. S. 539 (1976); New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U. S. 713 (1971); Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U. S. 415 (171); Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U. S. 697 (1931). Respondents concede that this statute is not in the classic mold of prior restraint, there being no prior injunction against publication. Nonetheless, they contend that the prior approval requirement acts in "operation and effect" like a licensing scheme, and thus is another form of prior restraint. See Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, supra at 283 U. S. 708. As such, respondents argue, the statute bears "a heavy presumption' against its constitutional validity." Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, supra at 402 U. S. 419. They claim that the State's interest in the anonymity of a juvenile offender is not sufficient to overcome that presumption.
Petitioners do not dispute that the statute amounts to a prior restraint on speech. Rather, they take the view that, even if it is a prior restraint, the statute is constitutional because of the significance of the State's interest in protecting the identity of juveniles.
(3)
The resolution of this case does not turn on whether the statutory grant of authority to the juvenile judge to permit publication of the juvenile's name is, in and of itself, a prior restraint. First Amendment protection reaches beyond prior restraints, Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U. S. 829 (1978); Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U. S. 469 (1975), and respondents acknowledge that the statutory provision for court approval of disclosure actually may have a less oppressive effect on freedom of the press than a total ban on the publication of the child's name.
Whether we view the statute as a prior restraint or as a penal sanction for publishing lawfully obtained, truthful information
is not dispositive because even the latter action requires the highest form of state interest to sustain its validity. Prior restraints have been accorded the most exacting scrutiny in previous cases. See Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart, supra at 427 U. S. 561; Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, supra at 402 U. S. 419; Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, supra at 283 U. S. 716. See also Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U. S. 546 (1975). However, even when a state attempts to punish publication after the event, it must nevertheless demonstrate that its punitive action was necessary to further the state interests asserted. Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia, supra at 435 U. S. 843. Since we conclude that this statute cannot satisfy the constitutional standards defined in Landmark Communications, Inc., we need not decide whether, as argued by respondents, it operated as a prior restraint.
Our recent decisions demonstrate that state action to punish the publication of truthful information seldom can satisfy constitutional standards. In Landmark Communications, we declared unconstitutional a Virginia statute making it a crime to publish information regarding confidential proceedings before a state judicial review commission that heard complaints about alleged disabilities and misconduct of state court judges. In declaring that statute unconstitutional, we...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Calligan v. Superior Court (Gates)
...... this issue, Justice Rehnquist noted in his concurring opinion in Smith v. Daily . Page 391 . Mail Publication Co. (1979) 443 U.S. 97, 99 ... [Citation.]" (Cramp v. Board of Pub. Inst., Orange County, Fla. (1961) 368 U.S. 278, 287, 82 S.Ct. 275, 280, ......
-
Equifax Services, Inc. v. Cohen
...... Cf. Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co., 443 U.S. 97, 99 S.Ct. 2667, 61 L.Ed.2d 399 ......
-
Javier A., In re
...... (Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co. (1979) 443 U.S. 97, 99 S.Ct. 2667, 61 ......
-
State v. Miller, 26851
......But see Syl. pt. 2, State ex rel. Daily Mail Publ'g Co. v. Smith, 161 W. Va. 684, 248 S.E.2d 269 (1978) ("To the ......
-
Table of Cases
...987 (1944), 918, 1079, 1513 Smith v. California, 361 U.S. 147, 80 S.Ct. 215, 4 L.Ed.2d 205 (1959), 1450 Smith v. Daily Mail Pub. Co., 443 U.S. 97, 99 S.Ct. 2667, 61 L.Ed.2d 399 (1979), Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. 566, 94 S.Ct. 1242, 39 L.Ed.2d 605 (1974), 1402-03 Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 7......
-
Censorship by proxy: the First Amendment, Internet intermediaries, and the problem of the weakest link.
...be imposed, if at all, only when narrowly tailored to a state interest of the highest order...."); Smith v. Daily Mail Publ'g Co., 443 U.S. 97, 103 (1979) (reversing a conviction for publishing the name of a defendant in a juvenile proceeding); Landmark Commc'ns, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S. ......
-
Public Plaintiffs and Private Facts: Should the "public Figure" Doctrine Be Transplanted Into Privacy Law?
...public figure doctrine of libel law applies to the false light tort). 40. So named for its articulation in Smith v. Daily Mail Publ'g Co., 443 U.S. 97 (1979). Ironically, while the holding in Daily Mail has evolved into the controlling test in cases of conflict between privacy and press fre......
-
Inverting the First Amendment.
...than would be applied to enforcement against other persons or organizations." Id. at 670. (277) See Smith v. Daily Mail Publ'g Co., 443 U.S. 97, 102 (1979) ("[S]tate action to punish the publication of truthful information seldom can satisfy constitutional standards."); Landmark Communicati......