XI.
FORMAT FOR CASE REPORTS
Your Name: Nicole Webb
Media Law and Ethics
Case Report # 1
Date: February 16, 2014
(1) Case name and complete citation:
THE FLORIDA STAR v. B.J.F., 530 So.2d 286 (1988), Supreme Court of
Florida
(2) Case summarization:
a. Specific circumstances of the initial trial:
The Florida Star, a Jacksonville newspaper, publishes a “Police Reports”
section in their paper. The Duval County police took her information, and prepared a
report that was taken to the paper’s pressroom. The Florida Star printed the report
including the victim’s name, which violates the Star’s internal policy. B.J.F. filed a suit
alleging that the Star negligently violated Florida Statues (1985) 794.03, which states that
no one could print, publish, or broadcast any information that identifies the victim of
sexual offense. Star first called for a dismissal of the charge claiming that pursing the
newspaper on 794.03 violated their First Amendment rights, although the motion was
denied. The court granted motion for B.J.F.’s directed verdict of negligence. B.J.F was
rewarded $75,000 compensatory and 25,000 in punitive damages for her “emotional
distress.” The verdict could be appealed, but later was reversed and the newspaper was
found not liable.
b. Specific question(s) of law addressed by the case:
1.) Can damages be imposed on a newspaper for truthfully publishing facts which are
publicly known?
2.) Is it an invasion of privacy when information is truthfully reported that’s obtained
from public records?
(3) Court decision and vote
a. What reasons did the court give for their decision
In the Florida Trial Court the reason for the directed verdict for B.J.F,
because the Star violated the state’s 794.03.
After the case was appealed the Appellate Court decided that imposing
damages on the Star for revealing B.J.F’s name violated the First Amendment, because
the name of the rape victim was open to public inspection. So the paper lawfully obtained
her name.
b. Why this case is important
The importance of this case is that liability can’t be imposed when in
accordance with the First Amendment when truthful information is obtained.
c. Legal precedence (major cases) cited in the decision




Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co., 443 U. S. 97, 443 U. S. 103.
(1979)
Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469 (1975)
American Ry. Express v. Levee, 263 U.S. 19, 20-21, 44 S.Ct. 11,
12-13, 68 L.Ed. 140 (1923)
Stratton v. Stratton, 239 U.S. 55, 56-57, 36 S.Ct. 26, 27, 60 L.Ed.
142 (1915).
d. Summary of the dissenting opinion (very brief)
The dissenting opinion disagrees that protecting a rape victim's name was not a
state’s higher interest, and allowing the state to penalize the publication of truthful
information. The dissenting opinion believes the court eliminated the right to privacy.
(4) Quote:
“When the subject of a “rap-sheet” is a private citizen the obscurity of the rap
sheet information will always be of high interest if available to the public. “