## Facts

- A city ordinance prohibited employment discrimination based on sex, subject to a narrow bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) exception, and prohibited aiding or abetting unlawful discrimination.
- A newspaper organized employment classifieds under sex-based headings (e.g., “Help Wanted—Male” and “Help Wanted—Female,” later framed as “Male Interest” and “Female Interest”).
- Employers were permitted to place ads under sex-based headings even when sex was not a lawful job qualification.
- The newspaper added a disclaimer stating the headings were for readers’ convenience and that, unless an ad specified otherwise, both sexes were encouraged to apply.
- A complaint was filed alleging the headings violated the ordinance by facilitating sex discrimination in hiring.
- After hearings, the city human relations commission found the newspaper had aided unlawful discrimination and issued a cease-and-desist order barring sex-designated headings except for jobs where sex was a lawful BFOQ.
- State courts upheld the order, with clarification that sex-designated headings were allowed only for exempt (BFOQ) job opportunities.
- The newspaper sought review, claiming the order violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments by interfering with editorial discretion and imposing an unconstitutional restraint on speech.

## Issues

1. Whether applying a municipal anti-discrimination ordinance to forbid sex-designated classified-ad headings for non-BFOQ jobs violates a newspaper’s First Amendment rights.
2. Whether restricting sex-designated headings in employment classifieds is an impermissible prior restraint when imposed through an administrative cease-and-desist order.
3. Whether a newspaper’s organization and labeling of classified ads constitutes protected editorial judgment immune from regulation aimed at unlawful discrimination.

## Decision

- The Court affirmed the order as applied, holding that prohibiting sex-designated headings for non-exempt job opportunities did not violate the First Amendment.
- The Court treated the affected content as purely commercial advertising rather than news, commentary, or other protected editorial expression.
- Because the ordinance permissibly barred discriminatory hiring, the city could also restrict advertising practices that directly furthered that unlawful conduct.
- The newspaper remained free to publish news and editorials about employment practices, sex discrimination, and the ordinance itself.
- The administrative order was not an impermissible prior restraint because it was clear, limited to non-BFOQ job advertising headings, and directed at commercial advertising tied to illegal conduct.

## Legal Principles

- Commercial advertising may receive reduced First Amendment protection, particularly when it facilitates unlawful commercial activity.
- Government may regulate advertising that materially aids or abets illegal discrimination where the underlying discriminatory conduct itself may be prohibited.
- Regulation of classified-ad format and headings can be permissible when it targets discriminatory effects in employment markets and does not restrict editorial content or public debate.
- A narrowly limited cease-and-desist order directed to unlawful commercial advertising practices is not automatically invalid as a prior restraint.

## Conclusion

The Court held that a city could bar sex-segregated job-classified headings for non-BFOQ positions because the headings functioned as commercial advertising that furthered unlawful employment discrimination, while leaving the newspaper’s editorial and news expression unrestricted.


Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Comm’n on Hum. Rels., 413 U.S. 376 (1973)