another to commit arson on his business so he can collect insurance money, or an organized crime boss directing a subordinate to kill a rival gang leader, First Amendment issues were unlikely to arise. Id. at 181. However, in an unusual case in which such issues did arise, the Committee understood that the First Amendment principles discussed above would “operate as supplementary restrictions on the applicability of the section.” Id. at 182. III. ANALYSIS for Norfolk County, 457 U.S. 596, 605-06, 102 S.Ct. 2613, 73 L.Ed.2d 248 (1982) (discussing the importance of public access to, and scrutiny of, criminal trials). Such scrutiny may involve disclosure of information about the people involved. See The Florida Star v. B.J.F., 491 U.S. 524, 109 S.Ct. 2603, 105 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989) (<HOLDING>); Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co., 443 U.S.
holding the evidence supported the inference that the victim was not released in a safe place where the victim overpowered the defendants and effected his own escape holding that first amendment precluded damages action brought by rape victim against newspaper for publishing victims name when name was obtained from publicly released police report holding that mistake as to the age of the victim is no defense to statutory rape holding that elements of rape do not include proof of the absence of a marital relationship between the accused and the victim holding that the imposition of damages on a newspaper for publishing the name of a rape victim lawfully obtained from a publicly released police report in violation of a florida statute and the newspapers own internal policy violated the first amendment