Near v. Minnesota: Arguments

Argument #1: The Court should rule in favor of Near (the newspaper) since prior restraint is the equivalent to censorship. If the stories prove to be false, then there is recourse in filing a libel suit against the paper.
 

Argument #2: The Court should rule for the State of Minnesota. Newspapers should not be allowed to publish malicious and false statements about elected officials. Some people might believe them to be true since they are printed in a newspaper. This will damage these officials reputations.
 

Back