It’s well established that any system of prior restraints of expression bears a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity, and that the state carries a heavy burden of showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint. Statutes and court orders restraining publication of information are enforced only when necessitated by a compelling governmental interest, and even then they are narrowly tailored to serve that interest, if indeed any justification would suffice to sustain a permanent order.

When the information is lawfully obtained, its publication cannot be prohibited except when necessary to further that compelling interest. In an extraordinary case such a restriction might be justified, but the justifications must be adduced on a case-by-case basis, with all interested parties given the opportunity to participate, and less restrictive alternatives must be adopted if feasible.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]