Virginian Pilot Case Analysis

Landmark Communications Newspaper, The Virginian Pilot, publishes an article about a reporting on a pending inquiry by the commission and identifying the judge whose conduct was being investigated. However, in Virginia this is violating a law stating that information cannot be released from commission hearings. The newspaper was found guilty and fined $500 for violating this law. The question of clear and present danger and prior restraint are the main focuses of this case. The case addresses a matter of public importance which should be brought to the attention of the Pilot's readers. The Virginia statute was unconstitutional and criminalized the publication of truthful information about judicial review proceedings violated the First Amendment's freedom of speech guaranteed.

The possibility that other measures will serve the State's interests should also be weighed. Landmark argued in the Supreme Court of Virginia that "before a state may punish expression, it must prove by `actual facts' the existence of a clear and present danger to the orderly administration of justice." 217 Va., at 706, 233 S. E. 2d, at 125. The court acknowledged that the record before it was devoid of such "actual facts," but went on to hold that such proof was not required when the legislature itself had made the requisite finding "that a clear and present danger to the orderly administration of justice would be created by divulgence of the confidential proceedings of the Commission." Id., at 708, 233 S. E. 2d, at 126. This legislative declaration coupled with the stipulated fact that Landmark published the disputed article was regarded by the court as sufficient to justify imposition of criminal