This preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: asked for an injunction necessary to maintain national security. In the courts opinion, the burden of proof rests on the party who wants the prior restraint, which demonstrates the courts opposition to prior restraint and their desire to uphold the freedoms of speech and the press. The Supreme Courts conclusions in the mentioned cases established a precedent that would be applied to this case. Near v. Minnesota confirmed the 1 st Amendments protection of the freedom of speech and press, while New York Times v. United States established that the burden of proof is the restraining partys responsibility. Both worked together to proclaim the importance of the freedom of speech, which is in danger. Since no war is taking place, no threat of attack exists, and nothing damaging to the governments biological agent is divulged in the story, the judge would rule against the governments injunction and the story would print....
View Full Document
- Fall '08