OPPapers.com

Zeeg Skeet

Situation:   Jay near published a scandal sheet in Minneapolis charging local officials of being involved with gangsters and the mob.

Near: Was exercising his right to free speech, and obviously was looking for new more reliable local officials.

Minnesota: 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. ---(Oyez.com)

Supreme Court Decision: The court ruled that authorizing the injunction was unconstitutional, since the state of Minnesota had expressed prior restraint, Near was not protected under the first amendment.   However, they did add that the state does not have the power to censor or prevent anyone's specific voice from being published.

New York Times vs. United States

Situation:   The U.S. government wanted to prevent the "Pentagon Papers" from being published in the New York Times by expressing prior restraint in order to protect and keep national security intact.  

New York Times:   Naturally, believed they were protected under the first Amendment; freedom of press.   A story like this would be big for its viewers.

United States Government:   If a story like the "Pentagon Papers" hit the country, there would be protests and perhaps even legal action against the government for what was going on in Vietnam.

Supreme Court Decision: Ruled in favor of the New York Times by saying the government using such a vague word as "security" most definitely does not take priority over the rights in the first amendment.   Prior restraint was ruled unjustified.

Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmejer

Situation:   In a high school newspaper, the daily proofs were brought to the principal for examination when he deemed two of the articles as "inappropriate" and insisted they be removed in today's issue....