Prior Restraint Order Threatened Press Freedom Found | Thank You Connecticut ACLU and ALL AMICI, XOXO!

January 5, 2015

 Re-Blogged with Permission and Intent from:
 Breaking News
Home / Connecticut Family Court’s / Prior Restraint Order Threatened Press Freedom
Prior Restraint Order Threatened Press Freedom
freedom of speech

Prior Restraint Order Threatened Press Freedom

Found on

The ACLU of Connecticut came to the immediate defense of freedom of speech and of the press after a judge’s order blocked the Connecticut Law Tribune from publishing an article about a court case.

On Nov. 24, 2014, Judge Stephen Frazzini issued an injunction in New Britain Superior Court to prevent the Law Tribune from publishing an article about the content of a document related to a child custody case, saying he was acting to protect the privacy of the children involved in the case. The Law Tribune’s lawyer, Daniel Klau, appealed the order. Censorship imposed before publication,  called “prior restraint,” has been found to violate the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in all but the narrowest circumstances, such as a threat to national security during wartime.

The ACLU of Connecticut quickly submitted a friend-of-the-court brief, written by Legal Director Sandra Staub in cooperation with Quinnipiac law Professor Martin Margulies and attorney Mario Cerame, to support the appeal. Joining the ACLU in the brief were 14 newspapers and four other news outlets, as well as the Connecticut Council on Freedom of Information, the Connecticut Foundation for Open Government, the Radio and Television Digital News Association, the Connecticut Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists and the Connecticut Daily Newspaper Association.

The ACLU brief argued that not only does the U.S. Constitution severely restrict the grounds for prior restraint, the Connecticut Constitution absolutely forbids it. “Prior restraints irreparably harm freedom of the press and ultimately our society itself and should be absolutely forbidden, in accord with our state constitution,” Staub wrote.

On Dec. 3, Frazzini rescinded his own order, saying it had become pointless after other newspapers published articles about the case. But this reversal did nothing to clarify that the order was unconstitutional. The Connecticut Law Tribune continues to press its appeal, which the Connecticut Supreme Court had already taken, bypassing the state Appellate Court, before the trial court reversal. If the state Supreme Court finds that the appeal is not moot, it may issue an opinion on the constitutionality of the original order.

“If the Supreme Court takes this opportunity to provide clarity on this important issue, our brief argues that the Connecticut Constitution prevents this judge or any other in Connecticut from issuing another unconstitutional order of prior restraint,” Staub said. “There is always harm when the government tells the press what it can and can’t publish. Even if the restraint is removed, the delay is damaging to freedom of the press and the public’s right to know.”


Fair Use and Legal Disclaimer:

(1) This post is made in good faith by the author of The Real Mommies and Daddies of the Real America . . . and their Children Who Want to Come Home, and to my little jewel, Julian, most precious, Julian’s Real Mummy.

(2) The guaranteed, federally protected and (US) Constitutionally secure fundamental First Amendment to the Federal  US Constitution and incorporated Bill of Rights and the ratified and applied Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution and incorporated Bill of Rights , pursuant to the Free Speech Clause, freedom of the Press, US Supremacy Clause, freedom of expression and association and peaceable assembly protects the content in this post and on this blog as does Federal statute 17 U.S.C., section 107 (“Fair Use”). 

(3)  The content in this post is not subject to censorship under any laws of any country, treaty, or global or otherwise alliance, and anyone who violates that clause will be subject to this author’s fee schedule by the letter, paid up front and with required due notice that will not be authorized, and will thus be subject to the current laws of the Federal US Constitution and incorporated Bill of Rights made applicable through ratification and application of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal US Constitution and Bill of Rights.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s