Pittsburgh Press Company v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations72-4191972Burger Court (1972-1975)burger4https://api.oyez.org/courts/burger4Pittsburgh Press CompanyPittsburgh Commission on Human Relations1973-03-201973-06-211972-12-044133761973https://api.oyez.org/case_citation/case_citation/14775https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/413/376/Writ of certiorariTo prevent gender discrimination, the Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations (the Commission) created an ordinance that forbids newspapers to advertise employment opportunities in gender-designated column. The National Organization for Women, Inc. filed a complaint with the Commission alleging that the Pittsburgh Press Co. (Pittsburg Press) violated the ordinance by allowing employers to place advertisements in the male or female columns when the jobs advertised do not have occupational qualifications or exceptions. The Commission had a hearing and concluded Pittsburg Press violated the ordinance. The Pittsburg Press appealed and contended the ordinance violates the First Amendment by restricting its editorial judgment. The Commonwealth Court affirmed. To prevent gender discrimination, the Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations (the Commission) created an ordinance that forbids newspapers to advertise employment opportunities in gender-designated column. The National Organization for Women, Inc. filed a complaint with the Commission alleging that the Pittsburgh Press Co. (Pittsburg Press) violated the ordinance by allowing employers to place advertisements in the male or female columns when the jobs advertised do not have occupational qualifications or exceptions. The Commission had a hearing and concluded Pittsburg Press violated the ordinance. The Pittsburg Press appealed and contended the ordinance violates the First Amendment by restricting its editorial judgment. The Commonwealth Court affirmed.No. Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. delivered the opinion of the 5-4 majority. The Court held that the Pittsburg ordinance, which forbids newspapers to carry gender-designated advertising columns for job opportunities, does not violate their First Amendment rights. This clause in the ordinance does not deny the newspapers freedom of expression, nor does it hinder the newspapers’ financial profits. The First Amendment does not protect advertisements for purely commercial reasons. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority broadens the “commercial speech” doctrine to include the layout and organizations decisions of a newspaper, which violates the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment. Justice William O. Douglas wrote a separate dissenting opinion in which he argued that the First Amendment protects commercial advertisements and that newspapers should be able to print whatever they want because of the freedom of the press. In a separate dissenting opinion, Justice Potter Stewart argued that the First Amendment protects all freedoms of the press and that any expression should be unrestrained by government. Justice Harry A. Blackmun joined in this dissent. No. Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. delivered the opinion of the 5-4 majority. The Court held that the Pittsburg ordinance, which forbids newspapers to carry gender-designated advertising columns for job opportunities, does not violate their First Amendment rights. This clause in the ordinance does not deny the newspapers freedom of expression, nor does it hinder the newspapers’ financial profits. The First Amendment does not protect advertisements for purely commercial reasons. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority broadens the “commercial speech” doctrine to include the layout and organizations decisions of a newspaper, which violates the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment. Justice William O. Douglas wrote a separate dissenting opinion in which he argued that the First Amendment protects commercial advertisements and that newspapers should be able to print whatever they want because of the freedom of the press. In a separate dissenting opinion, Justice Potter Stewart argued that the First Amendment protects all freedoms of the press and that any expression should be unrestrained by government. Justice Harry A. Blackmun joined in this dissent.Marjorie H. Matsonhttps://api.oyez.org/people/marjorie_h_matsonCharles R. Volkhttps://api.oyez.org/people/charles_r_volkEugene B. Strassburger, Jr.https://api.oyez.org/people/eugene_b_strassburger_jrWilliam O. Douglashttps://api.oyez.org/people/william_o_douglasPotter Stewarthttps://api.oyez.org/people/potter_stewartThurgood Marshallhttps://api.oyez.org/people/thurgood_marshallWilliam J. Brennan, Jr.https://api.oyez.org/people/william_j_brennan_jrByron R. Whitehttps://api.oyez.org/people/byron_r_whiteWarren E. Burgerhttps://api.oyez.org/people/warren_e_burgerHarry A. Blackmunhttps://api.oyez.org/people/harry_a_blackmunLewis F. Powell, Jr.https://api.oyez.org/people/lewis_f_powell_jrWilliam H. Rehnquisthttps://api.oyez.org/people/william_h_rehnquisthttps://api.oyez.org/cases/1972/72-419D:\PyCharm Community Edition 2024.3.1.1\PythonProject\IBM Z Datathon\json_data\api.oyez.org_cases_1972_72-419.json