This section covers official government restrictions of speech prior to publication. Prior restraints are viewed by the U.S. Supreme Court as “the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights," which repeatedly has found that such restraints are presumed unconstitutional. Restraints on Internet speech follow the same rules, although particular speech can often be restrained if it has already been adjudged as libelous.
Digital Journalist's Legal Guide
Everything online journalists need to protect their legal rights. This free resource culls from all Reporters Committee resources and includes exclusive content on digital media law issues.
The Reporters Committee filed an amicus letter in a controversial case over abortion-related videos. The National Abortion Federation is suing the Center for Medical Progress for breach of contract, among other claims, related to CMP's dissemination of video recordings taken at abortion services conferences. NAF obtained a temporary restraining order enjoining CMP from disseminating additional videos. The Reporters Committee argued that any temporary restraining order purporting to enjoin speech protected by the First Amendment must be subjected to strict scrutiny.