Near v. Minnesota - wikipedia Near v. Minnesota Near v. Minnesota Supreme Court of the United States Argued January 30, 1930 Decided June 1, 1931 Full case name J.M. Near v. Minnesota, ex rel. Floyd B. Olson, County Attorney, Hennepin County, Minnesota Citations 283 U.S. 697 ( more ) 51 S. Ct. 625 ; 75 L. Ed. 1357 ; 1931 U.S. LEXIS 175 ; 1 Media L. Rep. 1001 Prior history Temporary injunction granted, 11 - 27 - 27 ; defendants ' demurrer denied, State ex rel. Olson v. Guilford, Hennepin County District Court ; affirmed, 219 N.W. 770 ( Minn. 1928 ) ; judgment and injunction for plaintiffs, Hennepin County District Court ; affirmed, 228 N.W. 326 ( Minn. 1929 ) Subsequent history None Holding A Minnesota law that imposed permanent injunctions against the publication of newspapers with `` malicious, scandalous, and defamatory '' content violated the First Amendment, as applied to the states by the Fourteenth. Court membership Chief Justice Charles E. Hughes Associate Justices Oliver W. Holmes Jr. Willis Van Devanter James C. McReynolds Louis Brandeis George Sutherland Pierce Butler Harlan F. Stone Owen J. Roberts Case opinions Majority Hughes, joined by Holmes, Brandeis, Stone, Roberts Dissent Butler, joined by Van Devanter, McReynolds, Sutherland Laws applied U.S. Const. amends. I, XIV ; Minn. Stat. § § 10123 - 1 to 10123 - 3 ( 1925 ) Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 ( 1931 ), is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision that found that prior restraints on publication violate freedom of the press as protected under the First Amendment, a principle that was applied to free speech generally in subsequent jurisprudence. The Court ruled that a Minnesota law that targeted publishers of `` malicious '' or `` scandalous '' newspapers violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution ( as applied through the Fourteenth Amendment ). Legal scholar and columnist Anthony Lewis called Near the Court 's `` first great press case ''. It was later a key precedent in New York Times Co. v. United States ( 1971 ), in which the Court ruled against the Nixon administration 's attempt to enjoin publication of the Pentagon Papers. Contents 1 Background of the case 1.1 First trial court proceeding 1.2 First Minnesota Supreme Court decision 1.3 The trial court 's decision after remand 1.4 Second Minnesota Supreme Court decision 2 The Court 's decision 3 Subsequent developments 4 Basic case law resulting from this case 5 See also 6 References 7 Further reading 8 External links Background of the case The October 15, 1927 edition of The Saturday Press In 1927, J.M. Near, who has been described as `` anti-Catholic, anti-Semitic, anti-black, and anti-labor '' began publishing The Saturday Press in Minneapolis with Howard A. Guilford, a former mayoral candidate who had been convicted of criminal libel. The paper claimed that Jewish gangs were `` practically ruling '' the city along with the police chief, Frank W. Brunskill, who was accused of participation in graft. Among the paper 's other targets were mayor George E. Leach, Hennepin County attorney and future three - term governor Floyd B. Olson, and the members of the grand jury of Hennepin County, who, the paper claimed, were either incompetent or willfully failing to investigate and prosecute known criminal activity. Shortly after the first issue was distributed, Guilford was gunned down and hospitalized, where a further attempt on his life was made. At least one of the stories printed in The Saturday Press led to a successful prosecution of a gangster called Big Mose Barnett who had intimidated a local dry cleaner by destroying his customers ' clothing. First trial Court proceeding Olson filed a complaint against Near and Guilford under the Public Nuisance Law of 1925. Also known as the `` Minnesota Gag Law '', it provided permanent injunctions against those who created a `` public nuisance, '' by publishing, selling, or distributing a `` malicious, scandalous and defamatory newspaper. '' Olson claimed that the allegations raised against him and the other named public officials in all nine issues published between September 24, 1927, and November 19, 1927, as well as the paper 's overall anti-Semitic tone, constituted a violation of this law. On November 22, 1927, Judge Matthias Baldwin of the Hennepin County District Court issued a temporary injunction that barred the defendants from editing, publishing, or circulating The Saturday Press or any other publication containing similar material. This injunction was granted without notice to either defendant on an ex parte hearing between Olson and the judge, and was to extend until the hearing on the judge 's order for the defendants to show cause as to why they should not be permanently enjoined from publishing their paper. The hearing was held December 9, and future Minneapolis mayor, Thomas Latimer, argued that the defendants ' activities were protected by the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions and demurred to the complaint. Judge Baldwin denied the demurrer and was affirmed by the Minnesota Supreme Court on appeal. First Minnesota Supreme Court decision The State Supreme Court wrote that a scandalous publication `` annoys, injures and endangers the comfort and repose of a considerable number of persons, '' and so constituted a nuisance just as surely as `` places where intoxicating liquor is illegally sold, '' `` houses of prostitution, '' `` dogs, '' `` malicious fences '' `` itinerant carnivals, '' `` lotteries, '' and `` noxious weeds. '' The court considered that a newspaper may also endanger safety, because `` scandalous material '' tended to disturb the peace and provoke assaults. The court cited previous Minnesota decisions that upheld the right of the state to enjoin the publication of `` details of execution of criminals '' and the teaching of `` things injurious to society. '' Restricting the publication of a newspaper based on its harmful content accordingly fell within the legitimate power of `` the people speaking through their representatives '' to preserve `` public morals '' and the `` public welfare. '' The court stated that it had to give heavy deference to such decisions, because `` it is the prerogative of the legislature to determine not only what the public interests require but also the measures necessary to protect such interests. '' Regarding Near and Guilford 's defense of freedom of the press under article 1, section 3 of the Minnesota Constitution, the State Supreme Court did not believe that the right was intended to protect the publishing of `` scandalous material '', but that it only provided `` a shield for the honest, careful and conscientious press, '' not the `` defamer and the scandalmonger. '' Instead, `` he who uses the press is responsible for its abuse. '' The court also ruled that the state constitution 's due process clause did not extend any additional protection. The trial Court 's decision after remand The case then returned to the Hennepin County District Court, and Near and Guilford renewed their objection to the constitutionality of the Public Nuisance Law. Judge Baldwin again overruled their objection. Only the verified complaint that Olson had filed and the newspaper issues themselves were entered as evidence, and the defendants did not try to argue that the Saturday Press did not fit the definition under the statute, or that their published stories were in fact true. Baldwin ruled that the newspapers contained nothing but scandalous and defamatory material, and permanently enjoined the defendants `` from producing, editing, publishing, circulating, having in their possession, selling or giving away any publication whatsoever which is a malicious, scandalous or defamatory newspaper, as defined by law, '' and also `` from further conducting said nuisance under the name and title of said ' The Saturday Press or any other name or title. '' Second Minnesota Supreme Court decision ( Robert R. ) McCormick 's attorney argued... defaming the government is ' an inalienable privilege of national citizenship. ' `` '' On appeal once again, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that its first decision left little question as to the constitutionality of the statute, both under the defendants ' state constitutional challenge and a new argument based on due process under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The defendants also argued that the trial court 's injunction went too far because it effectively prevented them from operating any newspaper, but their appeal did not request a modification of the order. The court in any case disagreed with their interpretation of the order 's scope, stating that it did allow them to publish a newspaper, so long as it was operated `` in harmony with the public welfare. '' Only Near appealed from this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, thanks to last - minute financial help from Col. Robert R. McCormick, the legendary publisher of the Chicago Tribune. This time, the Court, by a narrow 5 - 4 margin reversed the decision of the Minnesota Supreme Court and ruled that the Public Nuisance Law of 1925 was unconstitutional. The reversal was based largely on changes to the makeup of the Supreme Court between the two arguments. A quotation from the decision written by Hughes is engraved in the lobby of the Tribune today. The Court 's decision The U.S. Supreme Court held that, except in rare cases, censorship is unconstitutional. The Court held : For these reasons we hold the statute, so far as it authorized the proceedings in this action under clause ( b ) ( 723 ) of section one, to be an infringement of the liberty of the press guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. We should add that this decision rests upon the operation and effect of the statute, without regard to the question of the truth of the charges contained in the particular periodical. The fact that the public officers named in this case, and those associated with the charges of official dereliction, may be deemed to be impeccable can not affect the conclusion that the statute imposes an unconstitutional restraint upon publication. Note that the paragraph above cites the Fourteenth Amendment and not the First Amendment. This is because the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the First and makes it applicable to the States. As literally written, the First Amendment applies to Congress and the federal government, not the states. This case strengthened the notion that a prior restraint of the press violates the First Amendment. However, it left a loophole which would be used later for other prior restraint cases, citing certain circumstances in which prior restraint could potentially be used : The objection has also been made that the principle as to immunity from previous restraint is stated too broadly, if every such restraint is deemed to be prohibited. That is undoubtedly true ; the protection even as to previous restraint is not absolutely unlimited. But the limitation has been recognized only in exceptional cases. ' When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right. ' ( Schenck v. United States, 1919 ). No one would question but that a government might prevent actual obstruction to its recruiting service or the publication of the sailing dates of transports or the number and location of troops. On similar grounds, the primary requirements of decency may be enforced against obscene publications. The security of the community life may be protected against incitements to acts of violence and the overthrow by force of orderly government. Hughes ( Ct ) : ``... the fact that liberty of press may be abused does not make any less necessary the immunity of the press from prior restraint... a more serious evil would result if officials could determine which stories can be published... '' Subsequent developments Guilford later joined the staff of the Twin City Reporter. He continued to draw the ire of organized crime in Minneapolis and was shot and killed on September 6, 1934. The Court closed off one of the few outlets remaining to censor the press under Near in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan ( 1964 ), which seriously limited the grounds upon which a public official could sue for libel. Statements made regarding their official conduct were only actionable if made with `` actual malice '', meaning a knowing or reckless disregard for the truth. Hustler Magazine v. Falwell ( 1988 ) excluded parodies from even this limited standard, as they included no actionable statements of fact. Hustler made clear this protection extended beyond merely defamation suits to cover other torts such as intentional infliction of emotional distress. Basic case law resulting from this case No prior restraint of the content of news by the government is allowed unless it reveals crucial military information, contains obscenity, or may directly incite `` acts of violence ''. See also Freedom of speech portal List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 279 Pentagon papers Yellow journalism Muckraking Kid Cann, one of the most notable gangsters in Minneapolis Thomas E. Latimer Joseph H. Weston References Jump up ^ Lewis, Anthony ( 1991 ). Make No Law : The Sullivan Case and the First Amendment. New York : Random House. p. 90. ISBN 0 - 394 - 58774 - X. Jump up ^ By Fred W. Friendly in Minnesota Rag : Corruption, Yellow Journalism, and the Case That Saved Freedom of the Press, his book on the case. Jump up ^ The law was passed to suppress Ripsaw, a newspaper first published in 1917 by a self - proclaimed Christian reformer in Duluth, Minnesota who criticized local business and politics. The city was at the heart of the `` Iron Range '', a region integral to the nation 's steel interests, and so the paper 's editorial attacks on local leaders eventually motivated members of the Minnesota Legislature from Duluth to pass the law. Ripsaw was the first target to be prosecuted under the new law, but its publisher died before his first day in court. Jump up ^ The description of the proceedings after remand were found in the brief of the Minnesota attorney general to the U.S. Supreme Court, which offered a more detailed description though did not appear to contradict Near 's account in his own brief. The order granting and describing the permanent injunction was quoted in the U.S. Supreme Court 's opinion. Jump up ^ Grossman, Ron ( January 19, 2018 ). `` How Col. McCormick set the stage for the Pentagon Papers court victory ''. Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 2018 - 01 - 21. Further reading Gossett, John S. ; Dee, Juliet ( 2003 ). `` Schenck v. United States and Abrams v. United States ''. In Parker, Richard A. ( ed. ). Free Speech on Trial : Communication Perspectives on Landmark Supreme Court Decisions. Tuscaloosa, AL : University of Alabama Press. pp. 69 -- 84. ISBN 0 - 8173 - 1301 - X. CS1 maint : Extra text : editors list ( link ) External links Works related to Near v. Minnesota at Wikisource Text of Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 ( 1931 ) is available from : Cornell CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Justia OpenJurist Oyez Friendly, Fred W. Minnesota Rag May 1981 ( Random House ) ISBN 0 - 394 - 50752 - 5 ; Reprinted May 2003 ( University of Minnesota Press ) ISBN 0 - 8166 - 4161 - 7 Lewis, Anthony Make No Law, pp. 90 -- 99 The Supreme Court and the Second Bill of Rights, by Richard Cortner. http://www.class.uh.edu/comm/classes/comm4303/section3/nearvsminnesota.html#nvm United States First Amendment case law Establishment Clause Public funding Everson v. Board of Education ( 1947 ) McCollum v. Board of Education ( 1948 ) Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York ( 1970 ) Lemon v. Kurtzman ( 1971 ) Marsh v. Chambers ( 1983 ) Mueller v. Allen ( 1983 ) Aguilar v. Felton ( 1985 ) Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet ( 1994 ) Agostini v. Felton ( 1997 ) Mitchell v. Helms ( 2000 ) Zelman v. Simmons - Harris ( 2002 ) Locke v. Davey ( 2004 ) Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn ( 2011 ) Public displays Stone v. Graham ( 1980 ) Lynch v. Donnelly ( 1984 ) Board of Trustees of Scarsdale v. McCreary ( 1985 ) County of Allegheny v. ACLU ( 1989 ) McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky ( 2005 ) Van Orden v. Perry ( 2005 ) Pleasant Grove City v. Summum ( 2009 ) School prayer Zorach v. Clauson ( 1952 ) Engel v. Vitale ( 1962 ) Abington School District v. Schempp ( 1963 ) Stone v. Graham ( 1980 ) Wallace v. Jaffree ( 1985 ) Lee v. Weisman ( 1992 ) Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe ( 2000 ) Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow ( 2004 ) Creationism Epperson v. Arkansas ( 1968 ) Edwards v. Aguillard ( 1987 ) Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District ( M.D. Pa. 2005 ) Legislature prayer Marsh v. Chambers ( 1983 ) Town of Greece v. Galloway ( 2014 ) Other McGowan v. Maryland ( 1961 ) McDaniel v. Paty ( 1978 ) Estate of Thornton v. Caldor, Inc. ( 1985 ) Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock ( 1989 ) Hosanna - Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ( 2012 ) Free Exercise Clause Reynolds v. United States ( 1879 ) Davis v. Beason ( 1890 ) Schneider v. New Jersey ( 1939 ) Cantwell v. Connecticut ( 1940 ) Minersville School District v. Gobitis ( 1940 ) Murdock v. Pennsylvania ( 1943 ) United States v. Ballard ( 1944 ) Braunfeld v. Brown ( 1961 ) Torcaso v. Watkins ( 1961 ) Sherbert v. Verner ( 1963 ) Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church ( 1969 ) Wisconsin v. Yoder ( 1972 ) Harris v. McRae ( 1980 ) Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division ( 1981 ) United States v. Lee ( 1982 ) Bob Jones University v. United States ( 1983 ) Bowen v. Roy ( 1986 ) Goldman v. Weinberger ( 1986 ) Employment Division v. Smith ( 1990 ) Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah ( 1993 ) City of Boerne v. Flores ( 1997 ) Watchtower Society v. Village of Stratton ( 2002 ) Cutter v. Wilkinson ( 2005 ) Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer ( 2017 ) Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission ( under consideration ) National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra ( under consideration ) Freedom of speech ( portal ) Sedition and imminent danger Alien and Sedition Acts ( 1798 ) Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten ( S.D.N.Y. 1917 ) Schenck v. United States ( 1919 ) Abrams v. United States ( 1919 ) Gitlow v. New York ( 1925 ) Whitney v. California ( 1927 ) Dennis v. United States ( 1951 ) Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board ( 1955, 1961 ) Yates v. United States ( 1957 ) Bond v. Floyd ( 1966 ) Brandenburg v. Ohio ( 1969 ) Hess v. Indiana ( 1973 ) False speech Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. ( 1974 ) United States v. Alvarez ( 2012 ) Fighting words and the heckler 's veto Cantwell v. Connecticut ( 1940 ) Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire ( 1942 ) Terminiello v. Chicago ( 1949 ) Feiner v. New York ( 1951 ) Gregory v. Chicago ( 1969 ) National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie ( 1977 ) R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul ( 1992 ) Snyder v. Phelps ( 2011 ) Elonis v. United States ( 2015 ) Freedom of assembly and public forums Hague v. CIO ( 1939 ) Schneider v. New Jersey ( 1939 ) Thornhill v. Alabama ( 1940 ) Martin v. City of Struthers ( 1943 ) Marsh v. Alabama ( 1946 ) Niemotko v. Maryland ( 1951 ) Edwards v. South Carolina ( 1963 ) Cox v. Louisiana ( 1965 ) Brown v. Louisiana ( 1966 ) Adderley v. Florida ( 1966 ) Carroll v. Town of Princess Anne ( 1968 ) Coates v. Cincinnati ( 1971 ) Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe ( 1971 ) Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner ( 1972 ) Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins ( 1980 ) Widmar v. Vincent ( 1981 ) Hill v. Colorado ( 2000 ) McCullen v. Coakley ( 2014 ) Packingham v. North Carolina ( 2017 ) Symbolic speech Stromberg v. California ( 1931 ) United States v. O'Brien ( 1968 ) Cohen v. California ( 1971 ) Smith v. Goguen ( 1974 ) Texas v. Johnson ( 1989 ) United States v. Eichman ( 1990 ) Virginia v. Black ( 2003 ) Compelled speech Minersville School District v. Gobitis ( 1940 ) West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette ( 1943 ) Wooley v. Maynard ( 1977 ) Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth ( 2000 ) Davenport v. Washington Education Association ( 2007 ) Knox v. Service Employees International Union, Local 1000 ( 2012 ) Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc. ( 2013 ) Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission ( under consideration ) National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra ( under consideration ) Loyalty oaths American Communications Association v. Douds ( 1950 ) Garner v. Board of Public Works ( 1951 ) Speiser v. Randall ( 1958 ) Keyishian v. Board of Regents ( 1967 ) Communist Party of Indiana v. Whitcomb ( 1974 ) School speech Minersville School District v. Gobitis ( 1940 ) West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette ( 1943 ) Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District ( 1969 ) Island Trees School District v. Pico ( 1982 ) Bethel School District v. Fraser ( 1986 ) Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier ( 1988 ) Rosenberger v. University of Virginia ( 1995 ) Morse v. Frederick ( 2007 ) Obscenity Rosen v. United States ( 1896 ) United States v. One Book Called Ulysses ( S.D.N.Y. 1933 ) Roth v. United States ( 1957 ) One, Inc. v. Olesen ( 1958 ) Smith v. California ( 1959 ) Marcus v. Search Warrant ( 1961 ) MANual Enterprises v. Day ( 1962 ) Jacobellis v. Ohio ( 1964 ) Quantity of Books v. Kansas ( 1964 ) Freedman v. Maryland ( 1965 ) Ginzburg v. United States ( 1966 ) Memoirs v. Massachusetts ( 1966 ) Redrup v. New York ( 1967 ) Ginsberg v. New York ( 1968 ) Stanley v. Georgia ( 1969 ) Cohen v. California ( 1971 ) United States v. Thirty - seven Photographs ( 1971 ) Kois v. Wisconsin ( 1972 ) Miller v. California ( 1973 ) Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton ( 1973 ) United States v. 12 200 - ft. Reels of Film ( 1973 ) Jenkins v. Georgia ( 1974 ) Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville ( 1975 ) Young v. American Mini Theatres ( 1976 ) New York v. Ferber ( 1982 ) American Booksellers v. Hudnut ( 7th Cir., 1985 ) Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc. ( 1986 ) People v. Freeman ( Cal. 1988 ) Osborne v. Ohio ( 1990 ) United States v. X-Citement Video ( 1994 ) Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union ( 1997 ) United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group ( 2000 ) Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition ( 2002 ) Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union ( 2002 ) Nitke v. Gonzales ( S.D.N.Y., 2005 ) United States v. Williams ( 2008 ) FCC v. Fox Televisions Stations - 2 cases ( 2009 and 2012 ) American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland ( 6th Cir., 2009 ) United States v. Kilbride ( 9th Cir., 2009 ) United States v. Stevens ( 2010 ) Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association ( 2011 ) Public employees Pickering v. Board of Education ( 1968 ) Perry v. Sindermann ( 1972 ) Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth ( 1972 ) Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle ( 1977 ) Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School District ( 1979 ) Connick v. Myers ( 1983 ) Rankin v. McPherson ( 1987 ) Waters v. Churchill ( 1994 ) Garcetti v. Ceballos ( 2006 ) Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri ( 2011 ) Heffernan v. City of Paterson ( 2016 ) Hatch Act and similar laws Ex parte Curtis ( 1882 ) United Public Workers v. Mitchell ( 1947 ) United States Civil Service Commission v. National Association of Letter Carriers ( 1973 ) Broadrick v. Oklahoma ( 1973 ) Licensing and restriction of speech Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio ( 1915 ) Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson ( 1952 ) Freedman v. Maryland ( 1965 ) Virginia State Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council ( 1976 ) Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. ( 1982 ) Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans ( 2015 ) Matal v. Tam ( 2017 ) Commercial speech Valentine v. Chrestensen ( 1942 ) Rowan v. U.S. Post Office Dept. ( 1970 ) Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations ( 1973 ) Bigelow v. Commonwealth of Virginia ( 1974 ) Virginia State Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council ( 1976 ) Bates v. State Bar of Arizona ( 1977 ) Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Willingboro ( 1977 ) Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission ( 1980 ) Consol. Edison Co. v. Public Serv. Comm'n ( 1980 ) Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Commission of California ( 1986 ) Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Company of Puerto Rico ( 1986 ) San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. United States Olympic Committee ( 1987 ) 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island ( 1996 ) Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc. ( 2011 ) Campaign finance and political speech Buckley v. Valeo ( 1976 ) First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti ( 1978 ) Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley ( 1981 ) Brown v. Socialist Workers ' 74 Campaign Committee ( 1982 ) Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Washington ( 1983 ) FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life ( 1986 ) Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce ( 1990 ) McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission ( 1995 ) Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC ( 1996 ) Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC ( 2000 ) Republican Party of Minnesota v. White ( 2002 ) McConnell v. FEC ( 2003 ) Randall v. Sorrell ( 2006 ) FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. ( 2007 ) Davis v. FEC ( 2008 ) Citizens United v. FEC ( 2010 ) McComish v. Bennett ( 2011 ) American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock ( 2012 ) McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission ( 2014 ) Williams - Yulee v. The Florida Bar ( 2015 ) Freedom of the press Prior restraints and censorship Near v. Minnesota ( 1931 ) Lovell v. City of Griffin ( 1938 ) Hannegan v. Esquire, Inc. ( 1946 ) New York Times Co. v. United States ( 1971 ) Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo ( 1974 ) Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart ( 1976 ) Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia ( 1978 ) Tory v. Cochran ( 2005 ) Privacy Time, Inc. v. Hill ( 1967 ) Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn ( 1975 ) Florida Star v. B.J.F. ( 1989 ) Taxation and privileges Grosjean v. American Press Co. ( 1936 ) Branzburg v. Hayes ( 1972 ) Minneapolis Star Tribune Co. v. Commissioner ( 1983 ) Defamation Beauharnais v. Illinois ( 1952 ) New York Times Co. v. Sullivan ( 1964 ) Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts ( 1967 ) Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Ass'n, Inc. v. Bresler ( 1970 ) Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. ( 1974 ) Time, Inc. v. Firestone ( 1976 ) Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc. ( 1984 ) Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc. ( 1985 ) McDonald v. Smith ( 1985 ) Hustler Magazine v. Falwell ( 1988 ) Harte - Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton ( 1989 ) Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. ( 1990 ) Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox ( 9th Cir., 2014 ) Broadcast media Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC ( 1969 ) FCC v. Pacifica Foundation ( 1978 ) Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC ( 1994 ) Bartnicki v. Vopper ( 2001 ) Copyrighted materials Zacchini v. Scripps - Howard Broadcasting Co. ( 1977 ) Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises ( 1985 ) Freedom of association Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath ( 1951 ) Watkins v. United States ( 1957 ) NAACP v. Alabama ( 1958 ) Baggett v. Bullitt ( 1964 ) In re Primus ( 1978 ) Roberts v. United States Jaycees ( 1984 ) Hurley v. Irish - American Gay, Lesbian, & Bisexual Group of Boston ( 1995 ) Boy Scouts of America v. Dale ( 2000 ) Retrieved from `` https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Near_v._Minnesota&oldid=831837612 '' Categories : 1931 in United States case law American media history United States Supreme Court cases United States Free Speech Clause case law United States defamation case law Incorporation case law Legal history of Minnesota Censorship in the United States United States Supreme Court cases of the Hughes Court Media in Minneapolis Hidden categories : CS1 maint : Extra text : editors list Talk Contents About Wikipedia Add links This page was last edited on 22 March 2018, at 12 : 35. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution - ShareAlike License ; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia ® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. About Wikipedia

Question: what was banned as a result of near v minnesota
Answer: No prior restraint of the content of news by the government