Prior Restraint

  1. Sarah Palin at CPAC, 2015

    Palin’s push into press freedom precedent

    SLAPPs Article

    The case Sarah Palin lost against The New York Times this week was the first libel claim to even go to trial against the paper in nearly two decades. That these cases are so rare reflects a critically important precedent in American law — one established by the Times itself. And though it's a cornerstone of press freedom, it's increasingly under attack.

  2. Excerpt of Veritas v. NYT order

    Statement on the extension of prior restraint order against New York Times Project Veritas reporting

    Prior Restraint Article

    Today's decision to allow this prior restraint of New York Times publishing to continue — and to restrict the paper's reporters from engaging in common newsgathering activities besides — is a shameful development. It is a cornerstone of speech law in this country that any prior restraint, even a very temporary one, is constitutionally permissible only in the most extreme scenarios. As the Times noted in its briefing on the issue, the result has been that such an order has not been entered against it since the Pentagon Papers case some 50 years ago.

  3. Excerpt of Veritas v. NYT order

    Prior restraint order in New York Times case on Project Veritas materials

    Prior Restraint Article

    A trial court judge has ordered The New York Times to stop disseminating information related to Project Veritas, in a shocking act of both prior restraint and restriction on protected newsgathering activities. Dean Baquet, executive editor of the New York Times, cited the Pentagon Papers case in calling the ruling "unconstitutional" and noting that it "sets a dangerous precedent." We agree.

  4. erin-song-5cx7nB8hpso-unsplash (1).jpg

    Draconian ‘national security’ law already muzzling Hong Kong’s journalists

    Global Affairs Article

    Hong Kong police have arrested Jimmy Lai, publisher of the pro-democracy newspaper Apple Daily, and his two sons under collusion charges associated with the country’s controversial new national security law. Under the notoriously vague law, China has claimed the jurisdiction to silence essentially anyone that criticizes the Chinese Communist Party or publicly supports the pro-democracy movement.