Answer 1: The protestors supported an unpopular view.
Edwards v. South Carolina was a case in which the Supreme Court held that state government officials are not allowed to force a crowd to disperse if they are otherwise legally marching in front of a state house. The decision was based on the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution. The Supreme Court argued that the arrests were an attempt to make criminal the peaceful expression of unpopular views, and therefore an infringement on the marchers’ right of free speech, free assembly and freedom to petition for a redress of grievances.
Answer 2: The speech must present a clear and identifiable danger.
A prior restraint is an official restriction of speech prior to its publication. They are extremely serious, as they are a violation of First Amendment rights. Therefore, they are used with caution. Judges need to use the “clear and present danger” test before resorting to a prior restraint. The “gravity of the evil,” discounted by its improbability, must justify the invasion of free speech.
Answer 3: Government censorship is almost always unconstitutional.
New York Times Co. v. United States was a decision by the Supreme Court that made it possible for the New York Times and the Washington Post to publish the Pentagon Papers without government censorship.
President Nixon had tried to stop the publication, arguing that the Papers constituted classified information. The Court stated that “any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.” In other words, it is assumed that any attempt by the government to censor the media is unconstitutional. In order to change the Court’s opinion, there must be significant proof that the expression of the material would cause irreparable damage and represent a grave danger to the American public. The burden of proof is heavy, and it was not met by the Nixon administration.