which the law did not define. This meant that the most vicious gossip who spread the details around was not subject to the law, but supposedly a newspaper was. Second, the law basically punishes a newspaper which truthfully prints information which it had legitimately obtained from a government agency. While a newspaper could be punished for truthfully reporting facts which were not public knowledge or which it unlawfully obtained (the Court referred back to prior cases where it gave examples of material a newspaper might legally be punished for publishing, such as the dates and times of troop ship movements during war), it is unconstitutional for a government agency to impose punishment upon a newspaper for truthfully publishing information that the government had in fact released publicly. The judgment in favor of Freedman was reversed and the newspaper was found not liable. See also List of United States Supreme Court cases List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 491 List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Rehnquist Court List of United States Supreme Court cases involving the First Amendment Google v González, C-131/12 (2014) publication bans Post-assault treatment of sexual assault victims References Further reading External links Florida state case law United States Free Speech Clause case law United States privacy case law United States Supreme Court cases United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court 1989 in United States case law Rape in the United States Duval County, Florida History of women in Florida