Final answer:
True, the attorney general can call for an injunction against a serious public nuisance as a representative of the public. The remedy of injunction is a legal measure to halt harmful activity and is balanced against the constitutional protections for free speech and freedom of expression.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question asks if the attorney general, representing the public, can seek an injunction if a nuisance becomes seriously detrimental. The simple answer is that this statement is true. An injunction is a legal remedy that can be used to halt continued harmful activity or to prevent potential harm. Such legal measures are particularly important when the activity in question poses a significant detriment to the public interest or public order.
The larger context of this situation involves free speech and defamation laws, especially as they pertain to public officials and prior restraint. The exercise of restricting speech before it happens, known as prior restraint, bears a heavy burden in constitutional law, and it is only employed in extreme cases where there is a substantial justification to do so.
The law allows the state to intervene not only to stop ongoing violations but also to prevent imminent harms, through injunctions, provided they meet stringent legal criteria. Moreover, there are protections put in place to prevent public officials from easily stifling the press or utilizing defamation laws to silence critics.
Notably, in the landmark case of New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court mandated that public figures must prove that any defamatory statement was published with 'actual malice' to claim damages. Therefore, while an attorney general can indeed call for an injunction against certain public nuisances, such legal actions are balanced against the strong protections for freedom of expression that exist in the United States.