The constitution remains emphatic on the need of freedom of speech in a democratic environment. Citizens need the right information to enable them perform their civic duty. The freedom of expression promotes individual self-realization and remains essential in the search for truth (Laraia, 2009). People’s freedom of speech enables them to participate in shaping the public affairs of a country. Failure to provide this right of freedom of speech a free society can fall in a retrogressive regime. Curtailing the freedom of speech can negate them the opportunity of making their contribution in the society.
Prior restraint suggests government restrictions on the media and any other form of dissemination or publication. Prior restraint is a system of censorship that declares a judicial injunction against any form of expression (Self & Hickson, 2006). The prohibition before words can be an inadequate freedom of expression if the government can punish without restraint after dissemination. The unrestrained threat acts as a form of punishment in prior restraint.
Prior restraint deals with official restrictions imposed on speech and other forms of expressions. A system of prior restraint prohibits the occurrence of communication. The doctrine of prior restraint cites limited exceptions after the First Amendment. All injunctions against distributing infringing work are prior restraints. At the judicial precedent of Kingsley Brooks Inc v. Brown, the court held that obscene speech remains unprotected by the First Amendment (Self & Hickson, 2006). The court suggests that all injunctions are prior restraints since speech is unprotected. When the injunctions enter prior to the final court ruling, the judicial precedent presumes prior restraint. This can also happen when an injunction serves a laudable purpose to preserve the status quo before the determination on the protection of the speech.
The doctrine of prior restraint remains part of the constitutional law in the present age. Most vital issues revolving around civil liberties such as status quo reach the Supreme Court. These kinds of issues include the censor on motion pictures that contain obscenity and the censorship on print media. There is a tremendous and ominous expansion in civil liberties. There are many controls devised to prevent future evils by restricting and jeopardizing the freedom of expression. Some of the restrictive methods include the loyalty security program, the Taft-Hartley Act, the internal security Act, and the non-Communist oath. There is a massive pressure present in the modern industrial society to control over expression (Self & Hickson, 2006). The complexities of the modern living necessitate this restrictive regulation. The supports of this system manipulate many people in the government to achieve its implementation. This enables the concept of prior restraint to take a prominent significance. The doctrine of prior restraint has endured the epic battles of freedom and rights of expressions
In many unconstitutional schemes of prior restraint, they seek to prevent unprotected speech and end up restricting protected speech, as well. In a traditional framework, it is illegal for one to print protected speech unless one has licenses. There were prescreening censorship systems that check on the material distributed. In the judicial precedent of Near v. Minnesota, the court stopped the operation of newsprint media since the media had printed libelous material. During this period, anyone who published and circulated obscene and defamatory material was guilty of nuisance (Laraia, 2009). The courts issued an injunction to punish the errant members in the society by fining them or serving a jail sentence for a whole year. This restraint is unconstitutional since it restricts both restricted protected and unprotected speech. In the judicial precedent of Vance v. Universal Amusement Co, The plaintiff struck down schemes of alleged obscenity without probable merits and final determination. This preliminary injunction is unconstitutional since it permits prior restraints of indefinite duration presumed to have obscenity.
Ideas of communication opened up upon the invention of printing. This made it possible to reign over this new medium of communication. The royal proclamation of the Licensing Act prohibited the printing of material unless it got clearance from the government. The Stationers Company registered all the printing press companies. The licensing laws have undergone numerous augmentation and renewal process to suit the modern needs.
References
Laraia, B. A., Siega-Riz, A. M., Dole, N., & London, E. (2009). Pregravid Weight Is Associated With Prior Dietary Restraint And Psychosocial Factors During Pregnancy. Obesity, 17(3), 550-558.
Self, W., & Hickson, M. (2006). United States V. Carmichael : Prior Restraint And The Internet. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 7(1), 3-8.
