rettifica - right to reply

Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC
In 1964, WGCB, a radio station, carried a fifteen minute syndicated broadcast of a religious program called "Christian Crusade," in which the Reverend Billy James Hargis verbally attacked Fred J. Cook, author of the book Goldwater: Extremist on the Right.

The Court decreed that, with respect to matters of public importance, "the right of free speech of a broadcaster . . . does not embrace a right to snuff out the free speech of others."
In a closely related argument, the Court boldly declared the First Amendment right of the viewers and listeners to receive information as paramount to the First Amendment right of the broadcasters to freely provide information. The Court noted that "(i)t is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here. That right may not constitutionally be abridged either by Congress or by the FCC." The Court held that was fully consistent
with the First Amendment goal of producing an informed public capable of conducting its own affairs to require a broadcaster to permit answers to personal attacks occurring in the course of discussing controversial issues, or to require that the political opponents of those endorsed by the station be given a chance to communicate with the public.

The Red Lion Court, however, also acknowledged the political value of speech in producing an informed electorate to actively and effectively participate in a system of democratic self-rule.

Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo
In 1972, the Miami Herald printed two editorials that were critical of the candidacy of Pat Tornillo in his bid for the Florida House of Representatives. Pursuant to section 104.38 of the Florida Statutes, a right to reply statute solely benefiting candidates in an election, Tornillo demanded that the Miami Herald print verbatim his replies, but the paper refused.

After citing the burden on the publisher in terms of cost and time, the Court noted "that, as an economic reality, a newspaper (cannot) proceed to infinite expansion of its column space to accommodate the replies that a government agency determines or a statute commands the reader should have available."

The Court reasoned that such a penalty would not only be impractical, but also would infringe upon the editorial autonomy guaranteed by the First Amendment, by forcing newspapers to print "that which 'reason tells them should not be published."'

Giurisprudenza italiana
Nell'ipotesi in cui l'interessato richieda una rettifica di lunghezza esorbitante il limite delle trenta righe, viene meno l'obbligo di pubblicare la rettifica da parte del direttore responsabile, che non ha il potere-dovere di ridurre, riassumere o altrimenti manipolare il testo al fine di contenerlo nel limite di spazio previsto dalla legge; ne' il giudice, adito in caso di rifiuto di pubblicazione, puo' "ex officio" ordinare che sia pubblicato un testo ridotto entro il limite suddetto.

Tribunale Bari 16 gennaio 1992,

Il diritto alla rettifica delle notizie pubblicate costituisce fondamentale diritto della persona a tutelare la propria immagine e dignita'. Pertanto la rettifica va pubblicata conformemente a quanto richiesto, senza che ne' il direttore del giornale ne' il giudice abbiano facolta' di modificarne il testo, o anche di sindacarne il contenuto sotto il profilo della veridicita'.

Tribunale S.Maria Capua V., 22 gennaio 1999

La lunghezza massima di 30 righe, entro cui contenere (ai sensi dell'art. 42 legge n. 416 del 1981) la rettifica di notizie ritenute dall'interessato non corrispondenti al vero, va computata rispetto al rigo del testo stampato da rettificare.

Pretura Bari 18 gennaio 1983

Non viola le disposizioni tassative di cui all'art.42, l.416/81 la pubblicazione della rettifica fatta seguire da un commento con il quale il giormalista ribadisca il contenuto del proprio articolo

Pretura Roma 10 luglio 1990