I’ve started writing a journalism textbook. I plan for Chapter 3 to be titled “Ethical Concepts” and it’s the chapter I’m writing first. I’m currently writing a section titled “No Prior Restraint.”
Daniel Baracskay’s article defines prior restraint as a form of censorship that allows the government to review the content of printed materials and prevent their publication. The First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of the press includes the restriction of prior restraints. Baracskay goes on to say that the Founding Fathers viewed prior restraint as detrimental to democracy. As literacy rates increased and the number of newspaper publications expanded, several court cases challenged government officials who were accused of abridging free press rights.
According to Harvey Zuckman and Martin Gaynes, in “Mass Communications Law,” the landmark case recognizing the dangers of prior restraint was Near vs. Minnesota in 1931. In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Minnesota Public Nuisance Abatement Law that barred the publication of malicious or defamatory materials.
1. abatement (uh-BATE-mint)
A. the act of creating
B. critical thinking
C. the process or act of putting an end to something
D. None of the above
——————-
2. gag order
A. a law requiring clarification
B. something official that’s humorous to the public
C. a parlando
D. an official restraint on free speech or debate
No. 1 is C. No. 2 is D. Baracskay writes, “County prosecutor Floyd Olson, who later became governor of Minnesota, had convinced a county judge in 1927 to issue a gag order against journalists Jay Near and Howard Gulliford under the Minnesota law.”
——————-
3. contentious (cun-TEN-chus)
A. graphic
B. plebiscitary
C. becoming pliant
D. likely to cause an argument
Near and Gulliford had written several contentious articles in The Saturday Press accusing Olson and other politicians of colluding with gangsters. No. 3 is D.
——————-
4. precedent (PREH-suh-dint)
A. human anticipation of the course of events
B. divine omniscience
C. one who is chosen to preside over a meeting
D. an earlier occurrence of something similar
Near appealed the case and won in a 5-4 decision in which the high court ruled that the Minnesota law violated the First Amendment. Baracskay says the case is significant because it established a judicial precedent for the no-prior-restraint doctrine. Moreover, it reinforced the incremental application, or incorporation, of the Bill of the Rights to the states. No. 4 is D.
Editor’s Note: Dr. Don Rodney Vaughan is the pastor of Mt. Vernon Baptist Church near Eupora and is on the faculty of East Mississippi Community College, Golden Triangle Campus. Contact him at dvaughan@eastms.edu.
