Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations
Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations (1973) was a Supreme Court case about a city ordinance in Pittsburgh. The city banned newspapers from running sex-designated “help wanted” ads, like “help wanted—male” or “help wanted—female,” for nonexempt job opportunities. The parent company of the Pittsburgh Press argued that this ordinance violated its First Amendment rights.
The issue was simple: Does limiting sex-segregated job ads in newspapers violate the First Amendment?
The Court’s decision was that the ordinance does not violate the First Amendment. A majority of justices said that help-wanted ads are a form of advertising, which is a type of commercial speech. Commercial speech does not receive the same broad First Amendment protection as editorial writing or news reporting. The Court explained that sex-segregated ads promote discrimination in hiring, and a newspaper should not help such discrimination by printing those ads. In other words, banning these ads is a legitimate government regulation.
The Court also noted that the decision protects editorial judgment and free expression of views in news content and opinion, and it does not limit the newspaper’s ability to publish stories or commentary.
There were several dissenting opinions. Some justices warned about the dangers of government control over the press, with concerns that the ruling could allow governments to dictate how newspapers lay out their pages or decide what ads to print. Others worried that the decision could set a troubling precedent for limiting press freedom in other ways.
Impact: The ruling gave cities a tool to curb discriminatory advertising in newspapers by banning sex-designated job ads, treating those ads as less protected commercial speech rather than fully protected First Amendment content.
This page was last edited on 2 February 2026, at 13:18 (CET).