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.
Featured Items
-
Gag rules stifle financial journalism
The government cannot silence its critics to save itself from embarrassment
-
Guest Opinion: Prison social media bans silence important voices
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
-
Federal prosecutors claim news is criminal contraband
Unconstitutional prior restraints are already on the rise. Now prosecutors are exploring novel new theories to censor journalists
-
NJ court to journalist on publication of official’s address: Do you feel lucky, punk?
Decision empowers state officials to try to stop reporting they dislike
-
Accountability needed after charges dropped against AL journalists
Prosecution under grand jury law was frivolous from the outset
-
Congress can’t ban TikTok ‘just in case’
Barring the platform would set a precedent for all sorts of future censorship, including bans on foreign news sites
-
LA’s lawsuit against journalist Ben Camacho is an unconstitutional mess
It was bad enough when the city sought an unlawful prior restraint against Camacho. Now it’s going even further
-
Northwestern’s student newspaper helps kill anti-speech prosecution
Student journalists set an example for the professionals when it comes to standing up for the First Amendment
-
New Jersey anti-SLAPP law faces its first test
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
-
Give journalists the floor
Mississippi shouldn’t copy other states by banning journalists from the Senate floor
