Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn

Supreme Court of the United States · 1975 · Torts

privacyFirst Amendmentpublic recordsrape victim identityfreedom of the pressjudicial proceedingstruthful publicationpublic records

Facts

Appellee's 17-year-old daughter was raped and died in the incident, and six youths were indicted for murder and rape. During court proceedings, reporter Wassell examined indictments made available for inspection in the courtroom and learned the victim's name from those public records. He then broadcast a report on WSB-TV naming the victim, and the report was repeated the next day. The victim's father sued for money damages for invasion of privacy under Georgia law based on the broadcasts.

Issue

Whether, consistently with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, a State may impose civil liability for publishing the name of a deceased rape victim when the name was accurately obtained from judicial records open to public inspection in connection with a public criminal prosecution. The Court also considered whether the Georgia Supreme Court's decision was sufficiently final for Supreme Court review.

Rule

The First and Fourteenth Amendments bar a State from imposing civil or criminal sanctions on the truthful publication of information contained in official court records open to public inspection. Once true information is disclosed in public court documents, the press cannot be sanctioned for publishing it.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Phoenix, a television station reported on a burglary prosecution and accurately identified a confidential informant by name after a producer copied the name from an indictment sitting in the clerk's public file box outside the courtroom. The informant later sued under an Arizona privacy statute that authorizes damages for publishing identifying information about crime witnesses.

Assuming the indictment was an official court record open to public inspection and the station published the name truthfully, is damages liability constitutionally permissible?

Explanation. The majority held that a State may not impose civil or criminal sanctions on the truthful publication of information contained in official court records open to public inspection. The result does not depend on the subject being a public official or public figure. Once the State has placed true information in public court records, the press cannot be punished for accurately reporting it. (Derived from Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn (1975).)