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
-
Join us in supporting Techdirt as it faces a threatening lawsuit for exercising its First Amendment rights
Techdirt is in a First Amendment fight for its life and needs everyone's support.
-
-
North Dakota needs to immediately drop its outrageous charges against journalist Amy Goodman
It's blatantly unconstitutional to prosecute reporters for doing their job.
-
Some questions for those who are cheering Gawker's demise
Gawker.com, the pioneering and controversial media blog, officially died yesterday. It was killed by billionaire Peter Thiel in his successful quest to bankrupt Gawker Media Group through a series of lawsuits he funded – most notably wrestler Hulk Hogan, who sued over the publication of a portion of his …
-
Our brief in support of Twitter's lawsuit against the US government for violating the First Amendment
Yesterday, NYU Technology Law & Policy Clinic filed a legal brief on behalf of Freedom of the Press Foundation in Twitter's important lawsuit against the government for violating their First Amendment rights. Buoyed by the Snowden disclosures that began eighteen months ago, tech companies like Twitter have been attempting to …
-
Prioritizing Personalities Over a Free Press
One of the most fascinating aspects of Glenn Greenwald’s journalism is the way it provokes various people who think of themselves as journalists to reveal their actual priorities. I wrote about this at length last week in a response to Michael Kinsley’s non-review review of Greenwald’s new book, No Place …
-
National Security Letter Case Shows the Absurdity of the Government’s Secrecy Rules
You'd be hard-pressed to find a better example of the government’s ludicrous approach to secrecy than a current case before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the constitutionality of National Security Letters. For almost two months, the government and Court of Appeals have teamed up to prevent a group …
