especially where minors are concerned, but it draws a firm distinction between unprotected obscenity and protected speech (e.g., Miller v. California, 1973; see also contemporary online age-verification laws adjudicated in recent years).
7. Other Notable Categories
• School Speech: Cases such as Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) protect students’ expression unless it causes substantial disruption, while Bethel v. Fraser (1986) and Hazelwood (above) permit some limitations in certain school contexts.
• Government Use of Private Intermediaries: National Rifle Association v. Vullo (2024) reinforced that officials may not use government power to retaliate against, punish, or coerce private entities (such as financial institutions or platforms) to suppress lawful speech.
Key Principles Established:
• The government generally cannot impose prior restraint on the press or publishers.
• Content regulation is most permissible for unprotected categories like obscenity and narrowly defined when designed for schools or protecting minors.
• Online speech receives robust First Amendment protections, but questions of state action and “jawboning” (government pressure on social media) are very much in flux, with plaintiffs needing to demonstrate direct harm.
• Private platforms and publishers have their own First Amendment rights and cannot generally be forced by government to carry particular viewpoints.
These cases illustrate the Supreme Court’s ongoing balancing act: enabling protection from certain harms (especially to minors and in the context of broadcast), while maintaining a strong presumption against government censorship and prior restraint across all forms of media. In the digital context, the Court is grappling with how to apply long-standing principles to new technologies and platforms.
The Supreme Court has shaped the constitutional landscape on censorship with a series of landmark decisions spanning traditional media, schools, broadcasting, and the digital age. Below are notable Supreme Court cases on censorship, including both historical landmarks and recent rulings:
1. Near v. Minnesota (1931)
The Court struck down a state law that allowed prior restraint (pre-publication censorship) of newspapers. This case established the fundamental principle that, except in rare circumstances, the government cannot prohibit publication in advance, affirming strong protections for press freedom.
“The liberty of the press, historically, has been confined to the immunity of the press from previous restraints or censorship.”
2. Reno v. ACLU (1997)
The Supreme Court ruled that portions of the federal Communications Decency Act (CDA) were unconstitutional restrictions on free speech. The law intended to restrict “indecent” material online, but the Court held it created “an unacceptably heavy burden on protected speech” and extended full First Amendment protections to internet communications.