Supreme court of the united states

[***LEdHR5] [5] [***LEdHR6] [6]The damage can be particularly great when the prior restraint falls upon the communication of news and commentary on current events. [HN9] Truthful reports of public judicial proceedings have been afforded special protection against subsequent punishment. See Cox Broadcasting Corp v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469, 492-493 (1975); see also, Craig v. Harney, 331 U.S. 367, 374 (1947) For the same reasons [HN10] the protection against prior restraint should have particular force as applied to reporting of criminal proceedings, whether the crime in question is a single isolated act or a pattern of criminal conduct. S

"A responsible press has always been regarded as [*560] the handmaiden of effective judicial administration, especially in the criminal field. Its function in this regard is documented by an impressive record of service over several centuries. The press does not simply publish information about trials but guards against the miscarriage of justice by subjecting the police, prosecutors, and judicial processes to extensive public scrutiny and criticism." Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S., at 350.I

The extraordinary protections afforded by the First Amendment carry with them something in the nature of a fiduciary duty to exercise the protected rights responsibly - a duty widely acknowledged but not always observed by editors and publishers. It is not asking too much to suggest that those who exercise First Amendment rights in newspapers or broadcasting enterprises direct some effort to protect the rights of an accused to a fair trial by unbiased jurors.

Of course, the order at issue - like the order requested in New York Times - does not prohibit but only postpones publication. Some news can be delayed and most commentary can even more readily be delayed without serious injury, and there often is a self-imposed delay when responsible editors call for verification of information. But such delays are normally slight and they are self-imposed. Delays imposed by governmental authority are a different matter. S

"We have learned, and continue to learn, from what we view as the unhappy experiences of other nations where government has been allowed to meddle in the internal editorial affairs of newspapers. Regardless of how beneficent-sounding the purposes of controlling the press might be, we? remain intensely skeptical about those measures that would allow government to insinuate itself into the editorial [*561] rooms of this Nation's press." Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241, 259 (1974) (WHITE, J., concurring).I

See also Columbia Broadcasting v. Democratic Comm., 412 U.S. 94 (1973). As a [***699] practical matter, moreover, the element of time is not unimportant if press coverage is to fulfill its traditional function of bringing news to the public promptly.