| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

The Supreme Court case Los Angeles Police Department v. United Reporting Publishing Corporation in 1999 revolved around the issue of whether a California law that restricted access to certain police records violated the First Amendment's free speech clause. The California statute allowed only specific individuals and entities, such as journalists or insurance companies, to access arrestee information for scholarly or journalistic purposes but prohibited its use for commercial solicitation. United Reporting Publishing Corporation challenged this law on grounds that it was unconstitutional because it discriminated based on the purpose of speech (commercial vs non-commercial) and identity of speaker (journalist vs non-journalist). However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Los Angeles Police Department stating that there is no constitutional prohibition against laws distinguishing between different types of speech unless they are related to suppressing ideas. Therefore, since California’s restriction did not aim at suppressing ideas but rather aimed at protecting privacy and preventing crime by limiting commercial exploitation of criminal activity data, it did not violate First Amendment rights.
In the dissenting opinion for Los Angeles Police Department v. United Reporting Publishing Corporation, Justice Stevens argued that California's statute restricting access to arrestee information did not violate the First Amendment. He contended that there was no constitutional right to government information about private citizens and emphasized the state’s interest in protecting privacy rights of individuals who have been arrested but not yet convicted. Furthermore, he pointed out that while freedom of speech is a fundamental right, it does not guarantee unrestricted access to all sources of potential news stories. The majority's decision, according to him, could lead states being forced into an unwanted choice between making personal data available indiscriminately or withholding it entirely from public view - both options having significant drawbacks.