Outline of Amicus Brief: Pavlovich v

Court noted that “punishing the press for its dissemination of information
which is already publicly available is relatively unlikely to advance the
interests in the service of which the State seeks to act.” Id. at 535; see also
id. at 539 (noting the statute’s lack of narrow tailoring because it prohibited
publication “regardless of whether the identity of the victim is already
known throughout the community”); accord Cox Broadcasting Corp. v.
Cohn, 420 U.S. at 496 (“Once true information is disclosed in public court
documents open to public inspection, the press cannot be sanctioned for
publishing it.”); see also Bartnicki, 532 U.S. at 546 (Rehnquist, J.,
dissenting) (distinguishing cases such as Florida Star from facts in
Bartnicki on ground that punishing disclosure of publicly available
information would not advance government’s interest in confidentiality:
“one cannot ‘disclose’ what is already in the public domain”).
Similarly, in Oklahoma Publishing Co. v. District Court, 430 U.S.
308 (1977), the Supreme Court invalidated an injunction prohibiting the
publication of the name and photograph of a juvenile after the press had
been permitted to attend a preliminary hearing in the case. The Court held
that the First Amendment “will not permit a state court to prohibit the
publication of widely disseminated information obtained at court
proceedings which were in fact open to the public.” 430 U.S. at 310; see
also Nebraska Press Ass’n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. at 571 (Powell, J.
concurring) (even where there is adequate showing that would otherwise
25