Talk:Prior restraint

	Freedom of speech portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

NPOV[edit]

There might be some nPOV issues here - "uniquely despicable," etc. Regardless of merit, this sounds more like an opinion piece than an encylopedia piece and needs attention. Quercus 03:20, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I believe I wrote that, and I don't think it is POV. It is not meant to say "uniquely despicable" in my opinion but rather in the opinion expressed in Anglo-American case law, which treats prior restraint as the worst form of censorship. --csloat 01:25, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Rewrite[edit]

I am doing a complete re-write an expansion of this page, off-line. i hope to have it online within 24 hours. When i am done, it will still need some non-US content, if any is available. 205.210.232.62 14:34, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The above was me, i thought I was logged in. DES 14:36, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)\

I have just posted a complete re-write of this article, removing the attention tag. However, the article is now strongly us-centric, and additional contenton the UK or othet countries, if any, where the concept of prior restraint is important should be added. 205.210.232.62 22:22, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Arghh! again, the above was me. DES 22:24, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Globalise tag added[edit]

The above comments about the US-centric nature of this article were added in 2005, but are still valid, so I've added a {{Globalize/USA}} tag in the hope that someone will do something about it; I'm not really competent to edit the article satisfactorily myself. At the moment it rather reads as though the US restrictions on prior restraint are the norm in the countries following the Anglo-American legal tradition. This is quite wrong: for example, I'm British, and prior restraint is legal here to a degree far beyond that in the First Amendment-protected United States. Something similar is true in Canada, and I believe in several other countries. From my layman's perspective, the US is really the exception rather than the rule on this issue. Loganberry (Talk) 18:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:The Progressive H-bomb cover.jpg[edit]

The image Image:The Progressive H-bomb cover.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People and businesses[edit]

Why can't prior restraint apply to people or corporations restraint on speech? How is restraint of speech by entities other than government tolerated? Wouldn't this also be prior restraint and belong in this article?Scientus (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United States v. The Progressive[edit]

United States v. The Progressive

This is a fascinating legal case, anyone want to collaborate on improving the page with me? Please leave a note on my user talk page, — Cirt (talk) 19:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Prior restraint. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]