World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations

Article Id: WHEBN0023796657
Reproduction Date:

Title: Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: Pittsburgh/On this day, Pittsburgh/On this day/March 20, Sex segregation, Censorship of student media, Dickinson v. United States
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia

Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations

Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations
Argued March 20, 1973
Decided June 21, 1972-1975
Full case name Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations
Citations 413 U.S. 376 (more)
Prior history Cert. to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
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, 413 U.S. 376 (1973), is a 1973 decision of the United States Supreme Court which upheld an ordinance enacted in Pittsburgh that forbids sex-designated classified advertising for job opportunities, against a claim by the parent company of the Pittsburgh Press that the ordinance violated its First Amendment rights.


The case involved an ordinance passed after Pittsburgh Press of advertising help wanted classified advertising under headings of "help wanted-male" and "help wanted-female" was discriminatory. Evidence from Gerald Gardner quantified the discriminatory nature of the advertising, showing that fewer jobs and ones with lower pay were being offered for women.[1]


In his majority decision, Associate Justice Lewis F. Powell ruled that help wanted ads were a form of commercial speech that is excluded from protections of freedom of speech and of the press offered under the First Amendment. Sex-segregated advertising was made illegal under the ordinance passed in Pittsburgh, and would be no more permissible than advertisements for prostitutes or drugs that would not be ameliorated by the fact that a newspaper advertised them under the headings "prostitutes wanted" or "narcotics for sale". In the same way, an advertiser who placed ads seeking male applicants "is likely to discriminate in his hiring decisions", and the newspaper should be assisting even indirectly in this discriminatory practice by allowing such ads to be printed.[2] Stewart emphasized that the court affirmed "the protection afforded to editorial judgment and to the free expression of views, however controversial" and that it was in no way restricting "stories or commentary by the Pittsburgh Press, its columnists or its contributors".[3]

The dissenting justices raised issues regarding the dangerous precedent on government control of the press, with Associate Justice Potter Stewart describing the decision as "the first case in this or any other American court that permits a government agency to... dictate the publisher the layout and makeup of the newspaper's pages", expressing his fear that this would not be the last such case once the precedent has been set. After all, once standards on advertising had been set in this decision "what is there to prevent it from dictating the layout of the news pages tomorrow?".[2] Chief Justice Warren Burger's dissent saw the decision setting "a treacherous path" in which the courts decide on "what is to be constitutionally unprotected and therefore subject to governmental regulation.[3]


  1. ^ Hopey, Don. "Obituary: Gerald H.F. Gardner / Scientist, teacher, social activist and feminist", Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, July 27, 2009. Accessed July 29, 2009.
  2. ^ a b Staff. "Law on Sex-Labeled Job Ads Is Upheld", The New York Times, June 22, 1973. Accessed July 29, 2009.
  3. ^ a b Staff. "'De-Sexed Ads Ruled for Press", Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, June 22, 1973. Accessed July 30, 2009.

External links

  • Full text of decision
This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.

Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from World eBook Library are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.