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
-
Arizona moves to restrict recordings of police with unconstitutional proposal
A misguided Arizona bill would make it illegal to take photos or video of the police in certain circumstances, running directly against long-established constitutional protections for such recordings. Freedom of the Press Foundation has joined a coalition of two dozen media and press freedom groups opposing the proposal.
-
Palin’s push into press freedom precedent
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.
-
Unconstitutional prior restraint against New York Times lifted — for now — in Veritas case
A state appeals court has stayed a prior restraint order in a high-profile case between the New York Times and Project Veritas. Freedom of the Press Foundation responds.
-
Crackdown in the statehouse: Lawmakers edge out press access
In a growing number of state legislatures across the country, journalists are facing new rules and proposed legislation that breaks with traditions of public access to legislators. These moves are a troubling development in the increasingly rocky relationship between government officials and the press that covers them, and should be rolled back and opposed wherever possible.
-
Statement on the extension of prior restraint order against New York Times Project Veritas reporting
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.
-
Prior restraint order in New York Times case on Project Veritas materials
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.
-
Draconian ‘national security’ law already muzzling Hong Kong’s journalists
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.
-
Book publishing and prior restraint under Trump
“Prior restraint” — or the attempt by individuals or governments to use courts to censor books or newspapers before publication — has become a tool increasingly relied upon by President Trump and his inner circle.
-
Privacy researchers push back on judge’s order to destroy NYPD public records
Any time a government agency orders documents that were obtained legally to be returned or destroyed is a threat to freedom of information and constitutional rights of reporters everywhere.
-
An important free speech statute that protects journalists in Texas is in danger
The Citizen Participation Act — which protests journalists and news organizations from meritless legal action in Texas — is in serious danger.
