When is prior restraint permitted

As you will see, the Court allowed for specific execptions to the general prohibition on prior restraints. Since the Court has created additional exceptions, some of which are discussed in Pember and in the case law below.

Near v. Minnesota , U. Obscene Speech - if the government can prove that expression is obscene, then the expression may be supressed. Incitement to Violence - if the government proves that speech is an incitement to violence it may stop and ban the speech.

National Security - again, the burden is on the government to prove that speech threatens the national security. New York Times v. United States , U. Sullivan, U. Minnesota, U. The Government "thus carries a heavy burden of showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint. Keefe, U. Davis , S. Westport, Conn. Hachten, William A. Ruckelshaus, William, and Elie Abel, eds. First Amendment Protections. Daniel Baracskay. Prior Restraint [electronic resource].

Want to support the Free Speech Center? Donate Now. Minnesota New York Times Co. Downs, Robert B. The First Freedom. Chicago: American Library Association, Marnell, William H. New York: Seabury, Schmidt, Benno C. Freedom of the Press vs. Public Access. New York: Praeger, Lee, Douglas E. About the Encyclopedia. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, U. Ohio Metropolitan Transportation Authority, F. City of Moreno Valley, F.

See also Mark A. Lemley and Eugene Volokh, Freedom of Speech and Injunctions in Intellectual Property Cases , 48 Duke Law Journal arguing that intellectual property should have the same First Amendment protection from preliminary injunctions that other speech does.

Stuart, U. United States, F. The Court distinguished between reporting on judicial proceedings held in public and reporting of information gained from other sources, but found that a heavy burden must be met to secure a prior restraint on either.

See also Oklahoma Pub. District Court, U. Daily Mail Pub. Justices Stewart and Marshall joined this opinion and Justice Stevens noted his general agreement except that he reserved decision in particularly egregious situations, even though stating that he might well agree with Justice Brennan there also. This, of course, also raises First Amendment issues. See , e. Bauer, F. See also Bantam Books v. See also Young v.

American Mini Theatres, U. Kingsley Books v. Brown, U. Cusack, U. City of Dallas, U. Rizzi, U. Thirty-seven Photographs, U. Conrad, U. City of Jacksonville, U. Gifts D—4, L. Indiana, U.