Brief Fact Summary. A Minnesota state statute provided for the abatement, as a public nuisance, of a “malicious, scandalous and defamatory newspaper, magazine or other periodical.” The statute provided further that there “shall be available for the defense that the truth was published with good motives and for justifiable ends.”
Synopsis of Rule of Law. In determining the extent of constitutional protection, it has been generally, if not universally, considered that it is the chief purpose of the guaranty of liberty of the press to prevent previous restraints upon publication. The protection as to previous restraint is not absolutely unlimited, but the limitation has been recognized only in exceptional cases.
The protection even as to previous restraint is not absolutely unlimited.View Full Point of Law
Issue. Is the Minnesota state statute consistent with the constitutional guarantee of liberty of the press?
Held. The statute in question, so far as it authorized the proceedings in this action, is an infringement of the liberty of the press guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (Constitution). Therefore, the judgment should be reversed.
Dissent. The judgment should be affirmed. The Minnesota state statute does not operate as a previous restraint on publication within the proper meaning of that phrase.
Discussion. The court cited, by way of example, certain classes of cases that might be subject to previous restraint, including: (1) the prevention or obstructing military recruiting or (2) the location of soldiers or (3) obscene publications. However, the case before the Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court) did not rise to that level. In this case, the paper was to be suppressed unless the publisher was able to prove that the charges were true and that they were published with good motives and for justifiable ends. Therefore, unless a truly exceptional circumstance, such as those listed by the Supreme Court, exists, the onus should not be on the press to prove that it is justified. Placing this burden upon the press would, otherwise, be an unconstitutional previous restraint.