Near V. Minnesota Case Summary

Prior restraint is when the government reviews material to determine whether its publication will be allowed. In the Near v. Minnesota case, prior restraint was established for the first time. The case began with Jay Near publishing a scandal sheet that attacked local officials, charging that they were implicated with gangsters. However, during this time Minnesota law provided that the abatement as a “public nuisance of a malicious, scandalous, and defamatory newspaper, magazine, or another periodical.” Near challenged the Minnesota law as a violation of the first amendment freedom of press guarantee, arguing that the law was tantamount to censorship. The Court held that the statutory scheme constituted a prior restraint and hence was invalid

In the Constitution Freedom of the press protects the right to obtain and publish information or opinions without government censorship or fear of punishment. One regulation I thknk the government should have on freedom of press is if an article is deemed as slander or violates a federal law than I think the government should be in control. However, if we allow government to control this freedom completely than how would we know if the news was legitimate or just what the government wants us to hear. In totalitarian regimes to create rule, the government inevitably controls the information to which the public can access. This is a huge problem to because it allows the government to determine what is worthy of the news. For instance, let’s say the government made a bad trade deal but did not want the people to hear about it. This could cause the government to leave out facts or alter information causing the people of the country to be misinformed. In America, we are given an immense amount of opportunity to discover and share news-no matter one’s opinion or subject matter, but in several other countries they do not share these ideals of