|
seth diamond, 1990, god, free, eggers, discrimination, woomera detention centre, humor magazine, buddha, attorney resource., law, barnard, 1996 cricket world cup, yiddish,
|
. . ." Id., at 46-47. Any system of prior restraint, however, "comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity." Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372U.S., at 70 ; terrible New York Times Co. v. United States, 403U.S., at 714 ; Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402U.S. 415, 419 (1971); Carroll v. Princess Anne, 393U.S. 175, 181 (1968); Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283U.S., at 716 . The presumption against prior terrible restraints is heavier terrible - and the degree of protection [420U.S. 546, 559] broader - than that against limits on expression imposed by criminal penalties. Behind the distinction is a theory deeply etched in our law: a free society prefers to punish the few who abuse rights of speech after they break the law than to throttle them and all others beforehand. It is always difficult to know in advance what an individual will say, and the line between legitimate and illegitimate speech is often so finely drawn that the risks of freewheeling censorship are formidable.
|
