PLS 460 Near v Minnesota

PLS 460 Near v Minnesota - Conclusion: The Supreme Court...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Near v Minnesota Facts of the Case: Jay Near published a scandal sheet in Minneapolis, in which he attacked local officials, charging that they were implicated with gangsters. Minnesota officials obtained an injunction to prevent Near from publishing his newspaper under a state law that allowed such action against periodicals. The law provided that any person "engaged in the business" of regularly publishing or circulating an "obscene, lewd, and lascivious" or a "malicious, scandalous and defamatory" newspaper or periodical was guilty of a nuisance, and could be enjoined (stopped) from further committing or maintaining the nuisance. Question: Does the Minnesota "gag law" violate the free press provision of the First Amendment?
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Conclusion: The Supreme Court held that the statute authorizing the injunction was unconstitutional as applied. History had shown that the protection against previous restraints was at the heart of the First Amendment. The Court held that the statutory scheme constituted a prior restraint and hence was invalid under the First Amendment. Thus the Court established as a constitutional principle the doctrine that, with some narrow exceptions such as troop movements, obscenities, and community security, the government could not censor or otherwise prohibit a publication in advance, even though the communication might be punishable after publication in a criminal or other proceeding....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 05/04/2010 for the course PLS 460 taught by Professor Lermack during the Spring '10 term at Bradley.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online