Advertisement
HomeCollectionsPrior Restraint
IN THE NEWS

Prior Restraint

FEATURED ARTICLES
NEWS
September 22, 1995
A U.S. DISTRICT COURT judge in Cincinnati ordered Business Week not to publish an article about a dispute involving two private firms. That is called prior restraint, and the judge knew when he did it that the Constitution forbids such an action. A panel of U.S. appellate judges, who also knew better, refused to over-rule the district court, on a procedural technicality. Yesterday, Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens turned down the magazine's emergency request to lift the order.He certainly knows better.
ARTICLES BY DATE
NEWS
October 15, 2004
After the many attacks on Bush, it's Kerry's turn Hats off to Sinclair Broadcast Group ("Democrats ask FCC to review Sinclair program on Kerry," Oct. 14). After Michael Moore's blatantly biased anti-Bush film and the discredited attack on President Bush's National Guard service by Dan Rather and CBS, it's Sen. John Kerry's turn for some criticism. The major TV networks and newspaper conglomerates have been blatantly aiding Mr. Kerry by ignoring his post-Vietnam War activities and his Senate record on defense and intelligence.
Advertisement
NEWS
By Lyle Denniston and Lyle Denniston,SUN NATIONAL STAFF | September 23, 1995
WASHINGTON -- Any time a newspaper or magazine has a story blocked by a court order, its lawyers know exactly what to do: Rush, do not saunter, to the courthouse with a constitutional challenge. It almost always works.For the past ten days, that is just what lawyers for Business Week magazine have been doing about a story ban. To their enormous surprise and to the dismay of lawyers for other media, the tactics did not work this time.That failure has sent an alert through newsrooms and the offices of First Amendment lawyers, where there is open fretting that the long American tradition against so-called "prior restraint" on publication could be weakening.
NEWS
October 13, 2004
MARYLAND'S own Sinclair Broadcast Group has made a name for itself for its unabashed conservative tub-thumping, so it is no wonder that Democrats have reacted with alarm to its decision to order all its affiliates to air a program about John Kerry during the Vietnam War. They're expecting a smear - though they haven't actually seen the finished program yet - but their desire to prevent its showing is just wrong. They argue that Sinclair is providing free advertising to President Bush's campaign.
NEWS
By Knight-Ridder | November 29, 1990
MIAMI -- News executives and media lawyers found little comfort in a federal judge's ruling allowing Cable News Network to broadcast tapes of Gen. Manuel Antonio Noriega's prison phone calls.They said yesterday's decision by U.S. District Court Judge William Hoeveler, though positive in and of itself, might still leave a legacy adverse to press freedom.The U.S. Supreme Court's Nov. 18 refusal to lift Hoeveler's temporary ban on the broadcast of the tapes may encourage judges to prevent news outlets from publishing stories until they review material in the media's possession, editors and legal experts said.
NEWS
November 20, 1990
For at least 60 years the Supreme Court has said that only in the most extraordinary circumstances (such as troop movements) could a court prevent journalists from reporting the news. Now the Supreme Court has sent a strong message that this can be done for a brief period, perhaps almost as a matter of routine, and it has implied that it can be done for a long period, perhaps permanently, in cases that while not routine are far short of extraordinary.The court did this Sunday by voting 7-2 to require Cable News Network to obey an order from a trial judge in Miami forbidding it to broadcast tapes made of Gen. Manuel Noriega's phone calls from prison, including some to members of his legal defense team, until the judge had listened to them to determine if publicizing them would interfere with the general's right to a fair trial.
NEWS
By Los Angeles Times | November 23, 1990
THE SUPREME COURT, ignoring its own precedents, has let stand a federal judge's gag order forbidding Cable News Network from broadcasting tapes of Manuel Noriega's jailhouse telephone conversations. The court offered no explanation for its stunning and potentially far-reaching decision. Its 7-2 vote, refusing both CNN's emergency request to lift the stay and its appeal on the merits of the gag order, means that for now at least the effort to deny CNN its right of free speech remains in force.
NEWS
By Lyle Denniston and Lyle Denniston,SUN NATIONAL STAFF | September 19, 1995
WASHINGTON -- Blocked by a federal judge from publishing an exclusive report on a business lawsuit, Business Week made plans to take its case to the Supreme Court today.The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati held a hearing yesterday on a plea by the magazine to wipe out the order issued Wednesday by Judge John Feikens.The clerk's office at the federal appeals court clerk's office said that the earliest that the court might act would be this morning.But McGraw-Hill Inc., the parent publisher of Business Week, said through a spokesman last night that it was ready to go on to the Supreme Court if Judge Feikens' order remained intact overnight.
NEWS
By Anthony Lewis | November 19, 1990
THE MOST BASIC premise of American freedom of the press is that editors do not have to persuade a judge to let them print or broadcast a story. Freedom from prior restraint -- from judicial orders against publication -- is a crucial difference from a country as generally free as Britain, where court orders often silence the press.That vital premise is now under threat. Two federal courts have imposed prior restraints that, if sustained, would invite judges into the business of editing. And a press organization, the Cable News Network, has inexplicably made the threat worse by provocative and lawless behavior.
NEWS
By Lyle Denniston and Lyle Denniston,Washington Bureau of The Sun | September 16, 1995
WASHINGTON -- Fighting a new round in a constitutional tussle as old as the nation, Business Week magazine is trying to get out from under a federal judge's order banning an article less than two hours before the presses were to start.Over the weekend, though, the magazine's editors and publisher will keep the article to themselves, choosing to obey the order issued Wednesday in Cincinnati by Judge John Feikens that squelched the magazine's exclusive report on a new twist in a business lawsuit.
NEWS
By George F. Custen | July 22, 1998
AS HOLLYWOOD's century draws to a close, the culture wars with which it opened abide and endure. Although most Americans do not realize it, 1998 marks the 83rd anniversary of the most important event in the history of American film. This key battle was not fought in Hollywood, but in Washington. There, a 1915 Supreme Court ruling, in conjunction with two factors unique to this country -- the absence of an official national language or state religion -- shaped film in a way that it came to play a role so powerful that our culture deemed it worth fighting over.
NEWS
By Lyle Denniston and Lyle Denniston,SUN NATIONAL STAFF | September 23, 1995
WASHINGTON -- Any time a newspaper or magazine has a story blocked by a court order, its lawyers know exactly what to do: Rush, do not saunter, to the courthouse with a constitutional challenge. It almost always works.For the past ten days, that is just what lawyers for Business Week magazine have been doing about a story ban. To their enormous surprise and to the dismay of lawyers for other media, the tactics did not work this time.That failure has sent an alert through newsrooms and the offices of First Amendment lawyers, where there is open fretting that the long American tradition against so-called "prior restraint" on publication could be weakening.
NEWS
September 22, 1995
A U.S. DISTRICT COURT judge in Cincinnati ordered Business Week not to publish an article about a dispute involving two private firms. That is called prior restraint, and the judge knew when he did it that the Constitution forbids such an action. A panel of U.S. appellate judges, who also knew better, refused to over-rule the district court, on a procedural technicality. Yesterday, Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens turned down the magazine's emergency request to lift the order.He certainly knows better.
NEWS
By Lyle Denniston and Lyle Denniston,SUN NATIONAL STAFF | September 19, 1995
WASHINGTON -- Blocked by a federal judge from publishing an exclusive report on a business lawsuit, Business Week made plans to take its case to the Supreme Court today.The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati held a hearing yesterday on a plea by the magazine to wipe out the order issued Wednesday by Judge John Feikens.The clerk's office at the federal appeals court clerk's office said that the earliest that the court might act would be this morning.But McGraw-Hill Inc., the parent publisher of Business Week, said through a spokesman last night that it was ready to go on to the Supreme Court if Judge Feikens' order remained intact overnight.
NEWS
By Lyle Denniston and Lyle Denniston,Washington Bureau of The Sun | September 16, 1995
WASHINGTON -- Fighting a new round in a constitutional tussle as old as the nation, Business Week magazine is trying to get out from under a federal judge's order banning an article less than two hours before the presses were to start.Over the weekend, though, the magazine's editors and publisher will keep the article to themselves, choosing to obey the order issued Wednesday in Cincinnati by Judge John Feikens that squelched the magazine's exclusive report on a new twist in a business lawsuit.
NEWS
August 23, 1991
Smoke HouseEditor: The non-smokers are happy now that Loch Raven Veterans Hospital has been designated a smoke-free workplace.To make the smokers happy a temperature-controlled outbuilding has been constructed to accommodate them while they smoke.Looks like the only unhappy people are the taxpayers who are paying $15,000 for this facility to be built.Ilene Kayne.Baltimore.OutragedEditor: I write in response to your July 22 editorial, ''Time Out for 'Adult Entertainment' .'' I am rather surprised that The Sun, normally a staunch defender of the First Amendment, took the position that it did.You wrote that the Anne Arundel County bill called for a study concerning ''adult book stores and film-viewing machines.
NEWS
October 15, 2004
After the many attacks on Bush, it's Kerry's turn Hats off to Sinclair Broadcast Group ("Democrats ask FCC to review Sinclair program on Kerry," Oct. 14). After Michael Moore's blatantly biased anti-Bush film and the discredited attack on President Bush's National Guard service by Dan Rather and CBS, it's Sen. John Kerry's turn for some criticism. The major TV networks and newspaper conglomerates have been blatantly aiding Mr. Kerry by ignoring his post-Vietnam War activities and his Senate record on defense and intelligence.
NEWS
October 13, 2004
MARYLAND'S own Sinclair Broadcast Group has made a name for itself for its unabashed conservative tub-thumping, so it is no wonder that Democrats have reacted with alarm to its decision to order all its affiliates to air a program about John Kerry during the Vietnam War. They're expecting a smear - though they haven't actually seen the finished program yet - but their desire to prevent its showing is just wrong. They argue that Sinclair is providing free advertising to President Bush's campaign.
NEWS
By Knight-Ridder | November 29, 1990
MIAMI -- News executives and media lawyers found little comfort in a federal judge's ruling allowing Cable News Network to broadcast tapes of Gen. Manuel Antonio Noriega's prison phone calls.They said yesterday's decision by U.S. District Court Judge William Hoeveler, though positive in and of itself, might still leave a legacy adverse to press freedom.The U.S. Supreme Court's Nov. 18 refusal to lift Hoeveler's temporary ban on the broadcast of the tapes may encourage judges to prevent news outlets from publishing stories until they review material in the media's possession, editors and legal experts said.
NEWS
By Los Angeles Times | November 23, 1990
THE SUPREME COURT, ignoring its own precedents, has let stand a federal judge's gag order forbidding Cable News Network from broadcasting tapes of Manuel Noriega's jailhouse telephone conversations. The court offered no explanation for its stunning and potentially far-reaching decision. Its 7-2 vote, refusing both CNN's emergency request to lift the stay and its appeal on the merits of the gag order, means that for now at least the effort to deny CNN its right of free speech remains in force.
Baltimore Sun Articles
|
|
|
Please note the green-lined linked article text has been applied commercially without any involvement from our newsroom editors, reporters or any other editorial staff.