One could also argue that news organizations should be required to publish a response from the person alleging
defamation. However, in Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, n113 the Supreme Court ruled that a Florida statute
requiring a newspaper to print a right of reply for political candidates was unconstitutional as a content-based
restriction. n114 The Court referred to the statute as a "penalty" that would exact a financial burden on newspapers "in
terms of the cost in printing and composing time and materials and in taking up space that could be devoted to other
material the newspaper may have preferred to print." n115 An additional concern would be the chilling effect on
publishers: "Faced with the penalties that would accrue to any newspaper that published news or commentary arguably
within the reach of the right-of-access statute, editors might well conclude that the safe course is to avoid controversy."
n116 With regard to the argument that a news organization should be required to indicate that the defamed person
declined to comment or could not be reached, while a responsible [*158] journalist should attempt to reach the other
side of the story, as the Supreme Court stated in Miami Herald, "[a] responsible press is an undoubtedly desirable goal,
but press responsibility is not mandated by the Constitution and like many other virtues it cannot be legislated." n117