1.3 Prior restraint and censorship

Prior restraint and censorship are crucial concepts in journalism law and ethics. They involve government attempts to block publication of material before release, rather than punishing after the fact. This raises significant First Amendment concerns about freedom of the press and free speech.

Journalists must navigate complex legal and ethical issues around censorship. While the First Amendment provides strong protections against prior restraint, exceptions exist for national security and imminent danger. Balancing the public's right to know with potential harms is an ongoing challenge.

Definition of prior restraint

• Prior restraint is a form of government censorship that prevents the publication or broadcast of material before it is released to the public
• It involves the government imposing restrictions on speech or expression in advance, rather than punishing the speaker or publisher after the fact
• Prior restraint is generally considered a more severe form of censorship than subsequent punishment, as it effectively silences speech before it can be heard or read

Government censorship

Licensing and permits

Top images from around the web for Licensing and permits

• 

  Freedom of the Press 8 - Qualified Press Privilege - Redoubt News View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Home - Eva Lacy View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  In the Philippines, cyber censorship is a new form of authoritarianism · Global Voices View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Freedom of the Press 8 - Qualified Press Privilege - Redoubt News View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Home - Eva Lacy View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

Top images from around the web for Licensing and permits

• 

  Freedom of the Press 8 - Qualified Press Privilege - Redoubt News View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Home - Eva Lacy View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  In the Philippines, cyber censorship is a new form of authoritarianism · Global Voices View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Freedom of the Press 8 - Qualified Press Privilege - Redoubt News View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Home - Eva Lacy View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

• Governments may require licenses or permits for certain forms of speech or expression, such as broadcasting or publishing
• These licensing systems can be used as a form of prior restraint, allowing the government to control who is allowed to speak and what they can say
• Examples of licensing requirements include broadcast licenses for radio and television stations, and permits for public demonstrations or protests

Judicial injunctions

• Courts may issue injunctions to prevent the publication or broadcast of specific material, such as classified government documents or trade secrets
• Injunctions are a form of prior restraint, as they prevent speech from occurring before it can be heard or read
• Injunctions may be issued in cases where the government argues that the speech in question poses a threat to national security, public safety, or individual privacy rights

National security concerns

• Governments may seek to censor speech or expression that they believe poses a threat to national security, such as the publication of classified information or the advocacy of terrorism
• National security concerns are often used as a justification for prior restraint, particularly in times of war or heightened security threats
• Examples of national security-related censorship include the classification of government documents and the prosecution of whistleblowers who leak sensitive information to the media

Self-censorship in journalism

Pressure from advertisers

• News organizations may face pressure from advertisers to avoid publishing stories that could damage the advertisers' interests or reputation
• This pressure can lead to self-censorship, where journalists or editors choose not to pursue certain stories or angles out of fear of losing advertising revenue
• Examples of advertiser pressure include threats to pull ads from publications that report critically on the advertiser's industry or products

Fear of legal repercussions

• Journalists may engage in self-censorship out of fear of legal consequences, such as defamation lawsuits or criminal charges
• The threat of legal action can have a chilling effect on speech, leading journalists to avoid reporting on sensitive or controversial topics
• Examples of legal threats include the use of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) to intimidate and silence journalists and media organizations

Protecting confidential sources

• Journalists may choose to self-censor in order to protect the identity of confidential sources who have provided sensitive or damaging information
• Revealing the identity of a confidential source can expose them to legal or professional consequences, and can damage the trust between journalists and their sources
• Examples of protecting confidential sources include the use of anonymous sources in reporting and the refusal to reveal sources' identities when subpoenaed by courts or law enforcement

First Amendment protections

Freedom of the press

• The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of the press, which includes the right to publish and broadcast information without government interference or censorship
• This protection is essential for ensuring that the media can serve as a watchdog on government and other powerful institutions, and can inform the public about matters of public concern
• Examples of press freedom include the ability to report on government corruption, corporate wrongdoing, and other issues of public interest without fear of retaliation

Limits to prior restraint

• While the First Amendment provides strong protections against prior restraint, these protections are not absolute
• The Supreme Court has recognized certain limited exceptions to the general prohibition on prior restraint, such as in cases of national security or imminent danger
• Examples of permissible prior restraint include restrictions on the publication of classified military information during wartime, or the temporary delay of publication to prevent immediate harm to individuals

Exceptions for imminent danger

• One of the recognized exceptions to the prohibition on prior restraint is in cases of imminent danger, where the speech in question poses a clear and present danger to public safety
• This exception is based on the idea that the government has a compelling interest in preventing harm to individuals or the public, even if it means temporarily restricting speech
• Examples of imminent danger include the publication of instructions for making explosives or other weapons, or the incitement of violence against specific individuals or groups

Landmark prior restraint cases

Near v. Minnesota (1931)

• In this case, the Supreme Court struck down a Minnesota law that allowed the government to shut down publications that were deemed "malicious, scandalous, and defamatory"
• The Court held that the law was an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech, and that the government could not censor publications in advance without a compelling justification
• The Near decision established the strong presumption against prior restraint that remains in place today

New York Times Co. v. United States (1971)

• Also known as the "Pentagon Papers" case, this decision involved the government's attempt to prevent the New York Times and Washington Post from publishing classified documents about the Vietnam War
• The Supreme Court ruled that the government had not met the heavy burden required to justify prior restraint, and allowed the newspapers to publish the documents
• The case reaffirmed the strong protections against prior restraint under the First Amendment, even in cases involving national security concerns

Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart (1976)

• In this case, a Nebraska judge had issued an order prohibiting the media from publishing certain information about a pending criminal trial, in order to protect the defendant's right to a fair trial
• The Supreme Court struck down the order as an unconstitutional prior restraint, holding that the judge had not met the heavy burden required to justify such a restriction on speech
• The decision emphasized that prior restraint is the most serious and least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights, and should be used only in the most extreme circumstances

Prior restraint vs. subsequent punishment

Differences in timing

• Prior restraint occurs before the speech or expression takes place, while subsequent punishment occurs after the fact
• Prior restraint prevents speech from being heard or read at all, while subsequent punishment allows the speech to be disseminated but imposes penalties on the speaker or publisher afterwards
• The timing difference is significant because prior restraint is seen as a more severe form of censorship, as it denies the public the opportunity to hear or read the speech in question

Chilling effect on speech

• Both prior restraint and subsequent punishment can have a chilling effect on speech, meaning that they discourage people from speaking or publishing out of fear of consequences
• However, prior restraint is seen as having a greater chilling effect, because it prevents speech from occurring at all, rather than simply punishing it after the fact
• The chilling effect of prior restraint can lead to self-censorship and the suppression of important information and ideas

Burden of proof

• In cases of prior restraint, the government bears a heavy burden of proof to justify the restriction on speech
• The government must show that the speech in question poses a clear and present danger, or that there is some other compelling justification for censorship
• In cases of subsequent punishment, the burden of proof is typically on the speaker or publisher to show that their speech was protected under the First Amendment
• This difference in burden of proof reflects the strong presumption against prior restraint under U.S. law

International perspectives

Variations in press freedom

• The degree of press freedom varies widely around the world, with some countries providing strong legal protections for journalists and media organizations, while others heavily restrict and censor the press
• Factors that can affect press freedom include the country's political system, cultural values, and level of economic development
• Examples of countries with high levels of press freedom include Norway, Finland, and Sweden, while countries with low levels of press freedom include North Korea, Eritrea, and Turkmenistan

Censorship in authoritarian regimes

• Authoritarian regimes often heavily censor the press and other forms of speech and expression, in order to maintain political control and suppress dissent
• Censorship tactics in authoritarian regimes can include direct government control of media outlets, strict licensing requirements, and the use of violence and intimidation against journalists
• Examples of authoritarian regimes with high levels of censorship include China, Saudi Arabia, and Iran

Role of international organizations

• International organizations such as the United Nations and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) play a role in promoting press freedom and combating censorship around the world
• These organizations may issue statements condemning censorship and attacks on journalists, provide training and support for media professionals, and monitor press freedom conditions in different countries
• Examples of international organizations working on press freedom issues include the Committee to Protect Journalists, Reporters Without Borders, and the International Press Institute

Ethical considerations

Balancing public interest vs. potential harm

• Journalists and media organizations must often balance the public's right to know with the potential harm that could result from publishing sensitive or controversial information
• This can involve weighing factors such as the newsworthiness of the information, the level of public interest, and the potential impact on individuals or groups who may be affected by the publication
• Examples of ethical dilemmas in this area include the decision to publish leaked government documents, the identification of crime victims or suspects, and the reporting on sensitive cultural or religious issues

Responsible reporting practices

• Responsible reporting practices involve adhering to ethical standards of accuracy, fairness, and independence, and avoiding practices that could harm individuals or undermine public trust in the media
• This can include verifying information before publication, providing context and balance in reporting, and being transparent about any conflicts of interest or biases
• Examples of responsible reporting practices include the use of multiple sources, the correction of errors or inaccuracies, and the disclosure of any financial or political connections that could influence coverage

Upholding journalistic integrity

• Journalistic integrity involves maintaining high standards of professionalism, honesty, and independence, and resisting pressure from outside interests or influences
• This can involve refusing to accept gifts or favors that could compromise objectivity, resisting attempts at censorship or intimidation, and being willing to stand up for important principles and values
• Examples of upholding journalistic integrity include the refusal to reveal confidential sources, the publication of stories that may be unpopular or controversial, and the willingness to challenge powerful interests or institutions when necessary