Stanford Law Review
Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart presents the Supreme Court's most strenuous disapproval of prior restraints on the press to date. Despite its concern for the first amendment rights of the press, however, the Court showed no such solicitude for the free speech rights of defendants and their attorneys. Instead, the two major opinions in Nebraska Press Association both contain unsupported, conclusory language suggesting that the special protection afforded the press might somehow be inapplicable to restraints against defendants and defense attorneys. The implication is that in order to secure their rights to fair trials defendants may have to sacrifice their first amendment rights in the process.
Monroe H. Freedman and Janet Starwood,
Prior Restraints on Freedom of Expression by Defendants and Defense Attorneys: Ratio Decidendi v. Obiter Dictum, 29 Stan. L. Rev. 607
Available at: http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/faculty_scholarship/9