Facts: Near Vs. Minnesota
-  Mr. Near published a newspaper in Minnesota called the Saturday Press,
which reported certain questionable conduct by the local police and officials
and hinted at a perceived favoritism towards them.
-  The Press claimed that the chief-of-police had illicit relations with gangsters.
Also, the Minnesota officials obtained an injunction in order to abate the
publishing of the Press newspaper under a state law that allowed this course
of action.
-  The state law authorized abatement, as a public nuisance, or a “malicious,
scandalous and defamatory newspaper, or other periodical.”
-  A state court order abated the Press and enjoined the Defendants, publishers
of the Press (Defendants), from publishing or circulation such “defamatory
and scandalous” periodicals.
Facts Continued:
The newspaper published accusations that
gangsters controlled gambling in
Minneapolis, and bootlegging and racketeering
were allowed to flourish because government
and police officials were not doing their jobs.
The Saturday Press also attacked Jews and
Catholics.
The Legal Question
The legal question for the U.S. Supreme Court, NEAR vs. MINNESOTA
Is censorship by prior restraint
of a newspaper allowed under
st
th
the 1 and 14 Amendment?
The Court’s Decision
No
The decision declared that in crisis
situations such as reports of troop
movements, or incitement to violence
or overthrow of government or
publication of obscene material.
Decision continued
Near v. Minnesota: The Verdict
The United States Supreme Court in the case of
Near v. Minnesota ruled in favor of J.M. Near, by
stating that the Minnesota Gag law was a direct
violation of the 1st Amendment to the United
States Constitution.
The Court’s Reasoning
Court Reason:
Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes emphasized the need for a
vigilant and courageous press, especially in large cities.
He then wrote that, “The fact that the liberty of the press may be abused
by miscreant purveyors of scandal does not make any less the immunity of
the press from previous restraint in dealing with official misconduct.
Subsequent punishment for such abuses as may exist is the appropriate
remedy, consistent with constitutional privilege.”
To conclude, the law would be deemed as constitutional, it could also
be a form of censorship. The press conducted out of accuracy with
research and accurate information and used good motives.
Dissenting Opinion
The dissention opinion was written by Justice
Pierce Butler, and he was accompanied by Justices
George Sutherland, William Van Devanter and
James Mcreynolds.
What they said: The Justices criticized the Court for
broadening the scope of freedom of the press.