The book defines prior restraint by saying "A government's preventing material from being published. This is a common method of limiting the press in some nations, but it is usually unconstitutional in the United States, according to the First Amendment and as confirmed in the 1931 Supreme Court case of Near v. Minnesota."(Edwards740). I think the government should have the power of prior restraint. This is because there is stuff that the people should not know. Some of the information could scare people and that is why the government should be able to hide information.
I agree with Dalton in that the government should have power of restraint, except it does need to be a very limited power. The government should be able to limit some things from being published that would cause a security threat and a leakage of important information that could hurt the US. For example, if someone wanted to publish the US security and department of defense plans during wartime, this should be stopped so that other countries cannot see our plans, and attack us. Also, if someone wanted to publish how to build an atomic bomb this should be stopped. However most speech and press should be allowed if the press doesn't pose a threat to the US security, because of the 1st Amendment rights.
I disagree with the idea of prior restraint. The 1st amendment ensures all citizens with not only the freedom of speech but also the freedom of the press. With these rights established, people should be able to express themselves and publish or broadcast whatever they feel, without any governmental intervention.
I agree with Blake, I think that the Press should be allowed to print whatever they wish because of our first amendment right. But I also think that any publication that exposes a clear and present danger should have some sort of restrictions on them.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe book defines prior restraint by saying "A government's preventing material from being published. This is a common method of limiting the press in some nations, but it is usually unconstitutional in the United States, according to the First Amendment and as confirmed in the 1931 Supreme Court case of Near v. Minnesota."(Edwards740). I think the government should have the power of prior restraint. This is because there is stuff that the people should not know. Some of the information could scare people and that is why the government should be able to hide information.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Dalton in that the government should have power of restraint, except it does need to be a very limited power. The government should be able to limit some things from being published that would cause a security threat and a leakage of important information that could hurt the US. For example, if someone wanted to publish the US security and department of defense plans during wartime, this should be stopped so that other countries cannot see our plans, and attack us. Also, if someone wanted to publish how to build an atomic bomb this should be stopped. However most speech and press should be allowed if the press doesn't pose a threat to the US security, because of the 1st Amendment rights.
DeleteI disagree with the idea of prior restraint. The 1st amendment ensures all citizens with not only the freedom of speech but also the freedom of the press. With these rights established, people should be able to express themselves and publish or broadcast whatever they feel, without any governmental intervention.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Blake, I think that the Press should be allowed to print whatever they wish because of our first amendment right. But I also think that any publication that exposes a clear and present danger should have some sort of restrictions on them.
Delete