Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo (1974) addressed government limits on media. Which action did the Court hold a state could not compel a newspaper to do?

• A. Newspapers have no First Amendment protections against government actions.
• B. The state could not compel a newspaper to print replies from candidates it criticized.
• C. The government could ban all political content from newspapers.
• D. The government could require newspapers to publish all political endorsements.

Answer: (B)

The main idea being tested is that the First Amendment protects a newspaper’s freedom to control its own content and prevents the government from forcing a private press to publish specific material. In Tornillo, the state tried to require a newspaper to print a reply from any candidate it had criticized. The Court said that forcing a newspaper to carry that reply infringes editorial autonomy and amounts to compelled speech by the government. Because the press decides what to publish and what to omit, the government cannot coerce it to print material it would not choose to publish.

This protects a key function of a free press: acting as a check on power without being turned into a mouthpiece for political viewpoints at the state's direction. The other possibilities misinterpret the scope of protection or propose actions the Court did not endorse; the decision does not say there are no First Amendment protections, nor does it authorize broad bans on political content or require publishing every political endorsement.