Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/04/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Eric, >>Prior restraint is illegal. Period. In the U.S. << Sorry, but this just isn't true. Prior restraints are strictly scrutinized by the courts, but they are not "illegal, period." Prior restraints are presumed invalid, but the presumption could be overcome. This is a very murky area of American law because in the leading Supreme Court decisions, the justices have seldom reached agreement as to the reasoning behind their decisions. In the famous Pentagon Papers case, there were nine separate opinions with nine separate reasoning processes for holding that prior restraints on the press are "almost" never permissible. Try printing military secrets, though. At least one federal court upheld a prior restraint on a magazine prohibiting publication of H-bomb plans. Prior restraints against individuals or non-press groups are also disfavored, but easier to survive constitutional scrutiny. Prior restraint prohibitions are notably relaxed when dealing with obscenity and can often be found. Prior restraints are not presumptively invalid when it comes to commercial speech and can be found all the time. There are also a few, narrowly defined area of speech which have no constitutional protection whatsoever - such as child pornography (which, in legal terms, has to be photographic) - and these have no defense against prior restraints and are therefore subject to prior restraint in every American jurisdiction. Bryan - -----Original Message----- From: Eric Welch <ewelch@ponyexpress.net> To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> Date: Saturday, April 10, 1999 8:21 PM Subject: Re: [Leica] cops >At 04:38 PM 4/10/99 -0700, you wrote: >>Of course it doesn't work that way in the real world, but since this is >>the law it seems to me that the prior restraint rulings should in theory > >Prior restraint is illegal. Period. In the U.S. And since this is an >international list, I'm sure our friends couldn't care less. So This is my >last post on this subject. :-) > >The press has special protection in publishing material, not in recording >it, except where specific laws provide for it (as in California!) > >Eric Welch >St. Joseph, MO >http://www.ponyexpress.net/~ewelch > >You know how to make God laugh? Make a plan. - Anonymous