NEAR V MINNESOTA 283 U.S 697 1931 NEAR V MINNESOTA U.S CONSTITUTION U.S GOV'T JUDICIAL COMMUNICATIONS U.S GOVERNMENT AND CONSTITUTION SIGNIFICANCE THIS RULING ESTABLISHED THAT THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS COULD NOT BE CHALLENGED BY STATE GAG LAWS THAT WOULD ALLOW JUDGES TO BAN PUBLICATIONS THEY FOUND OFFENSIVE OR SCANDALOUS IT PROTECTED EDITORS AND PUBLISHERS FROM THE ATTEMPTS OF COURTS OR POLITICIANS TO SILENCE OR CENSOR PUBLIC INFORMATION BACKGROUND IN 1925 THE MINNESOTA STATE LEGISLATURE PASSED THE PUBLIC NUISANCE ABATEMENT LAW POPULARLY KNOWN AS THE MINNESOTA GAG LAW THIS LAW GAVE JUDGES THE POWER TO STOP THE PUBLICATION OF A NEWSPAPER OR MAGAZINE THAT THEY CONSIDERED INDECENT OR HARMFUL FLOYD OLSON A MINNEAPOLIS ATTORNEY USED THE LAW TO HALT PRODUCTION OF THE SATURDAY PRESS A WEEKLY NEWSPAPER PUBLISHED BY J M NEAR THAT ATTACKED LOCAL POLITICAL CORRUPTION IN A WAY THAT OUTRAGED MANY OFFICIALS THIS MOVE ALARMED MANY PEOPLE INCLUDING CHICAGO PUBLISHER COLONEL ROBERT MCCORMICK WHO HAD HIS LEGAL STAFF PREPARE THE CASE FOR AN APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT DECISION THIS CASE WAS ARGUED ON JANUARY 30 1931 AND DECIDED ON JUNE 1 1931 BY A VOTE OF 5 TO 4 CHIEF JUSTICE CHARLES EVANS HUGHES WROTE THE MAJORITY OPINION STRIKING DOWN THE MINNESOTA LAW AS UNLAWFULLY RESTRICTING THE FIRST AMENDMENT'S FREEDOM OF THE PRESS JUSTICE PIERCE BUTLER WROTE THE DISSENTING OPINION ARGUING THAT THE DECISION PLACED TOO STRONG A FEDERAL RESTRICTION ON THE STATES WHICH SHOULD BE FREE TO MAKE THEIR OWN RULINGS ON WHICH INFORMATION WAS INAPPROPRIATE TO PUBLISH EXCERPT FROM THE OPINION OF THE COURT THE LIBERTY DEEMED TO BE ESTABLISHED WAS THUS DESCRIBED BY BLACKSTONE SIR WILLIAM BLACKSTONE ENGLISH JUDGE WHO WROTE COMMENTARIES ON THE LAWS OF ENGLAND THE LIBERTY OF THE PRESS IS INDEED ESSENTIAL TO THE NATURE OF A FREE STATE BUT THIS CONSISTS IN LAYING NO PREVIOUS RESTRAINTS UPON PUBLICATIONS AND NOT IN FREEDOM FROM CENSURE CONDEMNATION FOR CRIMINAL MATTER WHEN PUBLISHED EVERY FREEMAN HAS AN UNDOUBTED RIGHT TO LAY WHAT SENTIMENTS HE PLEASES BEFORE THE PUBLIC TO FORBID THIS IS TO DESTROY THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS BUT IF HE PUBLISHES WHAT IS IMPROPER MISCHIEVOUS OR ILLEGAL HE MUST TAKE THE CONSEQUENCE OF HIS OWN TEMERITY RASHNESS
