Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 86 views

    Near v. Minnesota

    Uploaded by

    patriciya
    The Minnesota Nuisance Abatement Statute allowed officials to obtain an injunction against a newspaper called the Saturday Press for publishing attacks against local officials. The statute allowed newspapers to be abated as public nuisances if they published scandalous or defamatory material, unless the publisher could prove the claims were true. The Court ruled the statute violated the First Amendment right to freedom of the press. While press freedoms could be abused, subsequent punishment was the appropriate remedy rather than prior restraint. The statute could lead to a system of censorship and was an unconstitutional infringement on press liberties. Four dissenting justices argued the ruling exposed communities to malicious falsehoods from insolvent publishers.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Near v. Minnesota

    Uploaded by

    patriciya
    86 views2 pages
    The Minnesota Nuisance Abatement Statute allowed officials to obtain an injunction against a newspaper called the Saturday Press for publishing attacks against local officials. The statute allowed newspapers to be abated as public nuisances if they published scandalous or defamatory material, unless the publisher could prove the claims were true. The Court ruled the statute violated the First Amendment right to freedom of the press. While press freedoms could be abused, subsequent punishment was the appropriate remedy rather than prior restraint. The statute could lead to a system of censorship and was an unconstitutional infringement on press liberties. Four dissenting justices argued the ruling exposed communities to malicious falsehoods from insolvent publishers.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    12. Near v. Minnesota

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Minnesota Nuisance Abatement Statute allowed officials to obtain an injunction against a newspaper called the Saturday Press for publishing attacks against local officials. The statute allowed newspapers to be abated as public nuisances if they published scandalous or defamatory material, unless the publisher could prove the claims were true. The Court ruled the statute violated the First Amendment right to freedom of the press. While press freedoms could be abused, subsequent punishment was the appropriate remedy rather than prior restraint. The statute could lead to a system of censorship and was an unconstitutional infringement on press liberties. Four dissenting justices argued the ruling exposed communities to malicious falsehoods from insolvent publishers.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    86 views2 pages

    Near v. Minnesota

    Uploaded by

    patriciya
    The Minnesota Nuisance Abatement Statute allowed officials to obtain an injunction against a newspaper called the Saturday Press for publishing attacks against local officials. The statute allowed newspapers to be abated as public nuisances if they published scandalous or defamatory material, unless the publisher could prove the claims were true. The Court ruled the statute violated the First Amendment right to freedom of the press. While press freedoms could be abused, subsequent punishment was the appropriate remedy rather than prior restraint. The statute could lead to a system of censorship and was an unconstitutional infringement on press liberties. Four dissenting justices argued the ruling exposed communities to malicious falsehoods from insolvent publishers.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    NEAR V.

    MINNESOTA
    (Hughes) Facts: The Saturday Press (the Press) published attacks on local officials. The Press claimed that the chief of police had illicit relations with gangsters. As per the Minnesota Nuisance Abatement Statute, Minnesota officials obtained an injunction in order to abate the publishing of the Press newspaper. The state law authorized abatement, as a public nuisance, of a malicious, scandalous and defamatory newspaper, or other periodical. They can bring the owner or publisher before a judge upon a charge of conducting and publishing scandalous and defamatory matter, unless it was proved that the charges are true and published in good motive. A state court order abated the Press and enjoined the Defendants, publishers of the Press (Defendants), from publishing or circulating such defamatory and scandalous periodicals. The statute was challenged against the liberty of the Press as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

    Issues: 1. W/N the Minnesota nuisance abatement statute was consistent with the liberty of the press as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Ruling: 1. No. Judgment of the state court reversed. The fact that the liberty of press may be abused by miscreant purveyors of scandal does not effect the requirement that the press has immunity from previous restraints when it deals with official misconduct. Subsequent punishment for such abuses as may exist is the appropriate remedy, consistent with the constitutional privilege. Therefore, a statute authorizing such proceedings is not consistent with the conception of the liberty of the press as historically conceived and guaranteed and is thus, unconstitutional. The statute in question cannot be justified by reason of the fact that the publisher is permitted to show, before injunction issues, that the matter published is true and is published with good motives and for justifiable ends. This statute, if upheld, could lead to a complete system of censorship. Thus, the statute is a substantial infringement
    Media Law Patricia Ann Aguila

    on the liberty of the press and in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. Dissenting Opinion: Four of the judges in their dissent stated that, the doctrine of ruling exposed the peace and good order of every community to the protracted false and malicious assaults of any insolvent publisher.

    Media Law Patricia Ann Aguila

    You might also like