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
-
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.
-
In a brewing First Amendment fight, California’s Attorney General threatens journalists for possessing a public records document
Reporters obtained a list of police convictions through a public records request. California’s Attorney General, claiming its mere possession is a misdemeanor crime, is threatening them with legal action.
-
Federal court dismisses dangerous charges in lawsuit that threatens First Amendment
A lawsuit by a logging company against environmental groups is a prime example of how corporations bring lawsuits in an attempt to drain their critics of resources and intimidate them into silence.
-
Another ‘ag-gag’ law struck down as a First Amendment violation, yet several states still have them in place
Despite a long history of journalists going undercover to investigate and shed light on secretive industries like the animal agriculture industry, several states have statutes—commonly known as ‘ag gag’ laws—that criminalize reporting on animal abuse at farms. Last Wednesday, a federal judge ruled Iowa’s such law unconstitutional on the grounds …
-
Prisons are censoring publications that challenge state power
Many civil liberties violations and instances of state abuse that incarcerated people experience are rendered invisible from the rest of the country. Prisons are cracking down on incarcerated people’s rights to access information, learn, and read the news—a huge threat to the First and Fourth Amendments.
