This Note demonstrates that the court's decision in Home Placement did infringe upon protected first amendment activity. Since free speech and free press guarantees were threatened by the government's action, the court should have balanced the competing interests and held in favor of Home Placement only upon a showing of a compelling state interest. After examining the interests of the advertiser, the reader, the government, and the newspaper, this Note concludes that the newspaper's right to control its message and to make editorial decisions free from the threat of governmental interference overbalance the antitrust claim made in this case. A Sherman Act claim should not be upheld where the anticompetitive effect is the unintended result of the exercise of protected speech activity. A contrary result would elevate antitrust law at the denigration of constitutional rights.
Robert J. Curran, A Free Press: The Forgotten Issue in Home Placement v. Providence Journal, 7 SEATTLE U. L. REV. 211 (1983).
Antitrust and Trade Regulation Commons, Communications Law Commons, Constitutional Law Commons