Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations facts for kids
Quick facts for kids Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations |
|
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued March 20, 1973 Decided June 21, 1973 |
|
| Full case name | Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations |
| Citations | 413 U.S. 376 (more)
93 S. Ct. 2553; 37 L. Ed. 2d 669
|
| Prior history | Pittsburgh Press Emp't Adver. Discrimination Appeal, 4 Pa. Commw. 448, 287 A.2d 161 (Commw. Ct. 1972) |
| Subsequent history | Rehearing denied, 414 U.S. 881 (1973). |
| Holding | |
| A Pittsburgh ordinance, as construed to forbid newspapers to carry sex-designated advertising columns for nonexempt job opportunities, does not violate petitioner's First Amendment rights | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Powell, joined by Brennan, Marshall, Rehnquist, White |
| Dissent | Burger |
| Dissent | Douglas |
| Dissent | Stewart, joined by Douglas |
| Dissent | Blackmun |
Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations was an important case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973. The Court looked at a rule from Pittsburgh that stopped newspapers from having job ads separated by gender. For example, ads could not be listed as "help wanted-male" or "help wanted-female." The Pittsburgh Press newspaper company argued that this rule went against its First Amendment rights. The First Amendment protects things like freedom of speech and the press. However, the Supreme Court decided that the Pittsburgh rule was allowed.
Why the Case Happened
This case started because of a rule passed in Pittsburgh. The rule was created after Wilma Scott Heide from the National Organization for Women (NOW) complained. She told the Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations that the Pittsburgh Press was being unfair.
The newspaper had job ads listed under "help wanted-male" and "help wanted-female." This practice was seen as discriminatory. A mathematician named Gerald Gardner showed proof. He found that fewer jobs, and often lower-paying ones, were offered to women.
The Supreme Court's Decision
In the main decision, Justice Lewis F. Powell explained the Court's view. He said that "help wanted" ads are a type of commercial speech. This means they are about business and making money. Commercial speech does not always get the same full protection as other kinds of speech under the First Amendment.
The Court decided that separating job ads by gender was illegal under Pittsburgh's rule. They reasoned that a business looking for only male applicants was likely to discriminate. The newspaper, by printing these ads, was helping this unfair practice.
Justice Powell also made it clear that the Court was not limiting the newspaper's freedom to publish stories or opinions. The decision only applied to these specific job advertisements.
Disagreements from Justices
Some justices disagreed with the Court's decision. Justice Potter Stewart worried about the future impact. He called the decision "the first case" where a government agency could tell a newspaper how to arrange its pages. He feared this might lead to more government control over the press later on.
Chief Justice Warren Burger also disagreed. He felt the decision put the courts on a "treacherous path." He worried that courts would start deciding what types of speech were not protected by the Constitution.
