According to candidate Pat Tornillo, Miami Herald was to print a paper in reply of critical editorials as per the right to reply statute of 1913. When Tornillo found out that the reply did not comply with the statute, he filed a case against Miami Herald. Tornillo argued out that the first amendment does no allow any rule that goes encourages a corporation from practicing expressive behavior. Herald based itself on the First Amendment which granted it the freedom to print all they felt was of important to the public. On the contrary, Tornillo based its case on the statute of Florida 1913 of right to reply, in the real sense; this statute limited the press from publishing what they had (Hamburg and Brotman 1995).
In regard to right to reply of Florida 1913, stated that Herald had to print editorials that comply with its accordance, although Tornillo was not happy a bout it, the First Amendment stated that press had the freedom of choice to print what was right to the public. Furthermore, the judge ruled out that the right to reply was not granting the press the freedom that they deserved.
Candidates had equal responsibilities to make their responses in accordance with the right to reply of Florida 1913 (Stuckey 1996). Despite the fact that the court declared that the statute was not constitutional as it was not respecting the First Amendment, they continued to respect their candidates. Miami Herald was delivering its services in accordance with the First Amendment and on the other hand the clients such as the Tornillo were still using the statute which is not as per the rights of the press.
Basing my judgment on the First Amendment, I believe that the court will give a ruling in respect to the First Amendment. In that case therefore Miami Herald will be favored by the ruling. Tornillo and other related cases will be denied their privacies. All the materials that will be printed will be treated much of publicly.