|
''Cohen v. Cowles Media Co.'', 501 U.S. 663 (1991),〔, full text of the opinion courtesy of Justia.com.〕 was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that freedom of the press does not exempt journalists from generally applicable laws. Dan Cohen, a Republican associated with Wheelock Whitney's 1982 Minnesota gubernatorial run, provided inculpatory information on the Democratic challenger for Lieutenant Governor, Marlene Johnson, to the Minneapolis ''Star Tribune'' and ''St. Paul Pioneer Press'' in exchange for a promise that his identity as the source would not be published. Over the reporters' objections, editors of both newspapers independently decided to publish his name. Cohen consequently lost his job at an advertising agency. He sued Cowles Media Company, who owned the ''Minneapolis Star Tribune''. In 1988, a jury of six found in Cohen's favor. The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed. The United States Supreme Court, while refusing to reinstate the damages, remanded the case to the Minnesota Supreme Court, which reinstated the jury's original verdict of $200,000. The Cowles Media Company was found liable based on a theory of promissory estoppel. ==Supreme Court opinion== The Supreme Court found, in a majority decision, that: # Against respondent's claims that it had no jurisdiction: citing Orr v. Orr, whether the arguments in inferior courts were federal law arguments was irrelevant, and moreover the Minnesota Supreme Court had used federal law and respondent had relied on First Amendment protection. # Promissory estoppel being a state action, the Fourteenth Amendment applies, and hence the First Amendment is triggered. (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan) However since the state principle of promissory estoppel is a generally applicable principle, there is no specific application of the First Amendment to the press, over and above that of any other citizen. (Associated Press v. NLRB) Cohen had not used the promissory estoppel argument to avoid the hurdle of a libel case, but for identifiable pecuniary losses. (Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell distinguishes.) Consequently any restriction on reporting was "incidental, and constitutionally insignificant" result of applying a generally applicable law. # Deciding whether the claim under promissory estoppel was valid, and whether the state constitution shielded the press, was a matter for the Minnesota Supreme Court, and on that basis the request for reinstatement of damages was denied, and the case remanded to the inferior court. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Cohen v. Cowles Media Co.」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|