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
-
Why principled conservatives should oppose Florida’s defamation bill
Proposal would ‘Europeanize’ American law and protect elites
-
Anti-press bill filed following DeSantis’ roundtable stunt
Proposal threatens to stifle investigative reporting
-
Unconstitutional gag order creates mass confusion in Idaho
Order restrains news reporting while failing to advance fair trial rights
-
Judges can now censor the internet on the taxpayer dime
Congress gifts judges unprecedented and unconstitutional powers.
-
California judge buries censorship order in the fine print
Newspaper group refuses to comply with unconstitutional order.
-
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.
