The case for ignoring censorship orders
AP Photo/Jim Wells
Bars on publication, also known as prior restraints, are a serious violation of free speech.
The First Amendment forbids nearly all orders barring the press from publishing information, also known as prior restraints. But that doesn’t stop the government from trying.
For nearly 100 years, the Supreme Court has consistently rejected prior restraints on the press, including in its famous decision in the Pentagon Papers case. But lower courts and government officials continue to violate the Constitution by trying to gag the press from publishing, withholding vital information from the public. Prior restraints are antithetical to press freedom and must be stopped.
When college activists in Chicagoland tampered with newspapers they were charged with obscure crimes. But now the city of Chicago is doing the tampering
The government cannot silence its critics to save itself from embarrassment
Restrictions on social media quell incarcerated journalists' access to their audience and harm the public’s right to know. A pending federal proposal would make things worse
Unconstitutional prior restraints are already on the rise. Now prosecutors are exploring novel new theories to censor journalists
Decision empowers state officials to try to stop reporting they dislike
Prosecution under grand jury law was frivolous from the outset
Barring the platform would set a precedent for all sorts of future censorship, including bans on foreign news sites
It was bad enough when the city sought an unlawful prior restraint against Camacho. Now it’s going even further
Student journalists set an example for the professionals when it comes to standing up for the First Amendment
Here’s what journalists should watch for in the first case applying the state’s new law meant to protect against meritless anti-speech lawsuits