Prior restraints carry a heavy presumption against constitutional validity because they silence expression before a final determination that it falls outside First Amendment protection. Delay itself can destroy the value of election reporting, protest, or breaking news. A valid system therefore needs narrow substantive standards and, where applicable, procedural safeguards that prevent an official from delaying or censoring speech at will.

New York Times Co. v. United States, the Pentagon Papers case, illustrates the extraordinary burden. The federal government sought judicial orders preventing newspapers from publishing a classified history of the Vietnam War. General predictions of harm to national security did not justify the injunctions. The decision does not create an absolute rule that classified information may always be published or lawfully acquired. It shows that government must make a concrete, exceptional showing before a court suppresses publication in advance.

An unbounded standard such as "against the public interest" is especially dangerous because the licensing official can convert personal preference into censorship. Objective deadlines, definite criteria, prompt review, and limited discretion help separate legitimate administration from a system of permission to speak.

Prior restraint differs from subsequent punishment. A defamation judgment entered after publication, a prosecution for unlawful incitement, or a penalty for violating a valid noise rule may still violate the First Amendment, but each is tested under the doctrine governing that speech or conduct. It is inaccurate to call every law announced before a speaker acts a prior restraint. A generally applicable criminal law does not become a licensing scheme merely because people know it exists.

Permit requirements also demand careful classification. A neutral parade permit coordinating routes and times can be a time, place, and manner system. A permit requiring the mayor to approve the message is a content-based prior restraint.

A city asks a court to stop an investigative article because it may embarrass officials. The city acts; the expression is news reporting; the requested injunction would operate before publication; and the government's stated reason is dislike of the story's consequences. The heavy presumption against prior restraint applies. By contrast, a later suit alleging a knowingly false factual statement requires defamation analysis.

The practical questions are whether government is preventing communication in advance, who exercises the power, what standards limit it, and whether prompt review exists. Commercial regulation, school editorial control, and punishment after publication may affect speech, but they do not become prior restraints merely for that reason.

Video lesson: Freedom of the Press: Crash Course Government and Politics #26