Understanding Prior Restraint: Protecting Free Speech

The constitutional doctrine of prior restraint prohibits censorship by the government or an institution that reviews and prevents the publication of specific content, usually in the form of a legal injunction or order. It is a limitation on freedom of speech and expression, which is guaranteed by the First Amendment. The doctrine establishes a strong presumption against censorship before publication, with the Supreme Court ruling that free expression outweighs potential harm. The doctrine has been applied in various cases, including the famous New York Times Co. v. United States, where the Court allowed the publication of sensitive information under the no prior restraint principle.

Explore related products

First Amendment Law in a Nutshell (Nutshells)

$62 $62

Murder the Truth: Fear, the First Amendment, and a Secret Campaign to Protect the Powerful

$19.9 $32.99

Advanced Introduction to US First Amendment Law (Elgar Advanced Introductions series)

$25.45

First Amendment: [Connected eBook] (Aspen Casebook Series)

$240.9 $308

First Amendment Law (University Casebook Series)

$252

Freedom for the Thought That We Hate: A Biography of the First Amendment

$12.63 $17.99

Free expression

The constitutional doctrine of prior restraint prohibits censorship or pre-publication censorship. It is a limitation on restraints until a final judicial determination that the restricted speech is not protected by laws that protect freedom of expression. The doctrine is often used to protect free expression and the liberty of the press.

In the United States, the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of the press includes the restriction of prior restraints. The Supreme Court has indicated that the Constitution establishes a strong presumption against such prior restraints. In the case of New York Times Co. v. United States (1971), the Supreme Court ruled that newspapers could publish the Pentagon Papers, which contained classified and top-secret information, under the no prior restraint doctrine. The Court's decision reinforced the media's role to serve as a watchdog and publish information, even critical reports about government officials and their actions.

The doctrine of prior restraint also applies to other forms of expression beyond print media, such as film, radio, television, and the Internet. In Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (1997), the Supreme Court struck down parts of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, reaffirming its commitment to protecting First Amendment publication rights.

However, it is important to note that not all restrictions on free speech are a breach of the prior restraint doctrine. In some cases, the publication of information affecting national security or law and order may be restricted, even when there are laws protecting freedom of expression. Additionally, the protection from prior restraint is not absolute, and compelling circumstances, such as national security or the potential harm to children, must be considered.

In conclusion, the constitutional doctrine of prior restraint plays a crucial role in protecting free expression by prohibiting censorship and ensuring that the liberty of the press and freedom of speech are upheld, while also allowing for certain exceptions in cases of national security or potential harm.

National security

The constitutional doctrine of prior restraint prohibits censorship by the government or other institutions, which would otherwise restrict freedom of speech and freedom of the press. This includes the publication of printed materials, as well as other forms of media such as film, radio, television, and the internet.

In the context of national security, the doctrine of prior restraint has been a subject of debate and interpretation. While the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press, there have been instances where national security concerns have led to restrictions on these freedoms.

One notable example is the Pentagon Papers case, where the New York Times and the Washington Post published classified and top-secret documents related to the Vietnam War in 1971. The federal government filed a lawsuit against the newspapers, citing national security as the primary reason for preventing further publication. However, the Supreme Court ruled in New York Times Co. v. United States (1971) that despite the sensitive nature of the information, the newspapers could continue publishing under the no prior restraint doctrine. The Court reaffirmed the media's role as a watchdog and the right to publish information, even if it is critical or embarrassing to government officials.

In another case, Near v. Minnesota, the Supreme Court held that a statute authorizing the prior restraint of a news publication was unconstitutional. However, the Court left open the possibility of prior restraints in exceptional cases, such as when the nation is at war or when the speech would incite violence. This interpretation sets a high bar for restricting freedom of expression, even in the name of national security.

While the doctrine of prior restraint protects against censorship and promotes freedom of expression, it does not provide absolute protection. Compelling circumstances, such as national security, may be considered, but the burden of justification falls heavily on the government. The advancement of technology and the emergence of new media platforms have also presented new challenges and interpretations of the law, extending beyond traditional print media.

Freedom of the press

The constitutional doctrine of prior restraint prohibits censorship or pre-publication censorship, usually by a government or institution, on expression that stops particular instances of expression in advance. In the context of freedom of the press, this means that the government cannot review and prevent the publication of printed materials.

The First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of the press includes the restriction of prior restraints. The Supreme Court has indicated that the Constitution establishes a strong presumption against prior restraints, which it has described as "the essence of censorship". In the case of New York Times Co. v. United States (1971), the Supreme Court ruled that newspapers could publish information about the Vietnam War under the no prior restraint doctrine, despite the sensitive nature of the information. This decision reinforced the media's role as a watchdog and to publish information, even critical reports about government officials.

The prohibition on prior restraint is a limitation on restraints until a final judicial determination that the restricted speech is not protected by the First Amendment. This means that prior restraint is not an absolute prohibition and that compelling circumstances, such as national security, must be taken into account. For example, in the case of Kinney v. Barnes (2012), the Supreme Court of Texas ruled that while defamatory statements could be removed, similar speech could not be prohibited from being posted in the future as this would constitute prior restraint.

The advancement of technology has also required new interpretations of the law for areas outside of print media, such as film, radio, television, and the internet. For example, the exhibition of a work of art or a movie may require a license from a government authority, and the failure or refusal to grant a license is a form of censorship.

Explore related products

A Short & Happy Guide to the First Amendment (Short & Happy Guides)

$28 $28

First Amendment Law: Fall 2025

$16.94

Fear and the First Amendment: Controversial Cases of the Roberts Court (Rhetoric, Law, and the Humanities)

$39.95 $39.95

First Amendment (Examples & Explanations)

$50.09 $76.95

The Constitution of the United States and The Declaration of Independence

$1.99 $6.95

Make No Law: The Sullivan Case and the First Amendment

$14.59 $20

Censorship

The doctrine of prior restraint plays a crucial role in safeguarding against censorship by preventing legal injunctions or government orders from prohibiting the publication of specific documents or forms of expression. It ensures that potential future publications are not stopped in advance, promoting a free flow of information and ideas. This doctrine is especially pertinent when addressing matters of national security and classified information. While it is widely accepted that information affecting national security may be restricted, even in the presence of laws protecting freedom of expression, prior restraint by the government is generally forbidden in countries like the United States and Argentina.

The Supreme Court has consistently demonstrated its commitment to protecting First Amendment publication rights. In the case of New York Times Co. v. United States (1971), the Court ruled that newspapers could publish sensitive information under the no prior restraint doctrine, prioritizing free expression over potential harm. Similarly, in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (1997), the Court struck down parts of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, reaffirming the protection of First Amendment rights even in the context of questionable internet content. These rulings establish a strong presumption against prior restraint and uphold the fundamental right to freedom of expression.

However, it is important to recognize that the protection from prior restraint is not absolute. Compelling circumstances, such as national security concerns, can justify certain limitations on expression. Additionally, prior restraint should be distinguished from censorship that establishes general subject matter restrictions and reviews specific instances of expression after they have occurred. While prior restraint involves pre-publication censorship, the latter form of censorship allows for the expression to take place before any potential repercussions are imposed.

In conclusion, the constitutional doctrine of prior restraint serves as a critical safeguard against censorship by prohibiting the suppression of communication and expression before a final judicial determination. It ensures that freedom of the press and the right to publish information are protected, fostering a society where diverse ideas and perspectives can be openly exchanged without undue interference. While exceptions may exist, particularly in matters of national security, the doctrine of prior restraint remains a cornerstone of constitutional law, upholding the fundamental values of free expression and democratic discourse.

Judicial precedent

The constitutional doctrine of prior restraint prohibits censorship by the government or other institutions that prevents particular instances of expression from being published. This can take the form of a legal injunction or government order, as well as a policy imposed by a commercial corporation.

The doctrine of prior restraint is based on the principle of freedom of speech and freedom of the press, which are guaranteed by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has indicated that the Constitution establishes a strong presumption against prior restraints, and that any system of prior restraints is heavily presumed to be unconstitutional. This was established as a judicial precedent in the case of New York Times Co. v. United States (1971), where the Supreme Court ruled that newspapers could publish the Pentagon Papers, which contained sensitive information about the Vietnam War, under the no prior restraint doctrine. The decision reinforced the media's role as a watchdog and to publish information, even critical reports about government officials.

Another case that set a judicial precedent for the no prior restraint doctrine is Near v. Minnesota, which reaffirmed that governmental censorship of media publications is unconstitutional. However, the ruling still left questions about whether the First Amendment applies to situations where a publication could potentially threaten national security.

In the case of Kinney v. Barnes (2012), the Supreme Court of Texas ruled that while defamatory statements could be removed, similar speech could not be prohibited from being posted online later as it would constitute prior restraint and risk a chilling effect.

The prohibition on prior restraint is a limitation on restraints until a final judicial determination that the restricted speech is not protected by the First Amendment. However, it is widely accepted that publication of information affecting national security may be restricted, and judicial gag orders may be sustained in exceptional cases.

Frequently asked questions