词条 | Cohen v. Cowles Media Co. |
释义 |
|Litigants=Cohen v. Cowles Media Co. |ArgueDate=March 27 |ArgueYear=1991 |DecideDate=June 24 |DecideYear=1991 |FullName=Dan Cohen v. Cowles Media Company, dba Minneapolis Star & Tribune Company, et al. |USVol=501 |USPage=663 |ParallelCitations=111 S. Ct. 2513; 115 L. Ed. 2d 586; 1991 U.S. LEXIS 3639; 59 U.S.L.W. 4773; 18 Media L. Rep. 2273; 91 Cal. Daily Op. Service 4796; 91 Daily Journal DAR 7417 |Prior=Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Minnesota |Subsequent= |Holding= |SCOTUS=1990-1991 |Majority=White |JoinMajority=Rehnquist, Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy |Dissent=Blackmun |JoinDissent=Marshall, Souter |Dissent2=Souter |JoinDissent2=Marshall, Blackmun, O'Connor |LawsApplied=U.S. Const. amend. I }} Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., 501 U.S. 663 (1991),[1] was a U.S. Supreme Court case holding that the First Amendment 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the Minneapolis Star Tribune and St. Paul Pioneer Press in exchange for a promise that his identity as the source would not be published.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. Opinion of the CourtThe Supreme Court found, in a majority decision, that:
DissentsJustice Blackmun's dissent focussed on the concept that applying promissory estoppel punished the publication of truth. Justice Souter's dissent was based on the balance of "the importance of the information to public discourse" to the other interests involved. In this case the potential effect of the publication of Cohen's identity on an election for public office was thought to be compelling. See also
Further reading
References1. ^{{ussc|name=Cohen v. Cowles Media Co.|501|663|1991}}. {{usgovpd}} External links
| case = Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., {{ussc|501|663|1991|el=no}} | cornell =https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/501/663 | courtlistener =https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/112638/cohen-v-cowles-media-co/ | googlescholar = https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10285464750874523654 | justia =https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/501/663/case.html | loc =http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep501/usrep501663/usrep501663.pdf | oyez =https://www.oyez.org/cases/1990/90-634{{US1stAmendment|speech}} 4 : 1991 in United States case law|United States Free Speech Clause case law|United States Supreme Court cases|United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court |
随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识,基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识,是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。