TOP. Dissent. BUTLER, J., Dissenting Opinion. MR. JUSTICE BUTLER, dissenting. The decision of the Court in this case declares Minnesota and every other State powerless to restrain by injunction the business of publishing and circulating among the people malicious, scandalous and defamatory periodicals that in due course of judicial procedure has been adjudged to be a public nuisance.
In a Minneapolis newspaper called The Saturday Press, Jay Near and Howard Guilford accused local officials of being implicated with gangsters. Minnesota officials sought a permanent injunction against The Saturday Press on the grounds that it violated the Public Nuisance Law because it was malicious, scandalous, and defamatory.
Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931), is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision that found that prior restraints on publication violate freedom of the press as protected under the First Amendment, a principle that was applied to free speech generally in subsequent jurisprudence.
In 1925, Minnesota passed a law called the Minnesota Gag Law. The law allowed judges to stop the publication of any newspaper that created a scandal or defamed (lied about) a person. The law was designed to fight "yellow journalism," which was a trend in the newspaper industry in the 1920s to print ...
Near v. Minnesota/Dissent Butler. From Wikisource < Near v. Minnesota. Jump to navigation Jump to search. Near v. Minnesota Dissenting Opinion by Pierce Butler — Court Documents; Case Syllabus: Opinion of the Court ... In its opinion (179 Minn. 40, 228 N.W. 326), the court said:
Near v. Minnesota. Freedom of the Press is a bedrock constitutional principle. However, the presumption that the press cannot be restrained from publishing stories was not established until 1931, when the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling in Near v.Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 51 S. Ct. 625, 75 L. Ed. 1357.This First Amendment decision has become a core constitutional precedent that ...
Case summary for Near v. Minnesota: Near was prevented from publishing “The Saturday Press” under a state statute which prevented the publication of “malicious, scandalous and defamatory” periodicals. This specific publication was known to publish racial slurs regarding public officials, specifically Olsen.
The opinion seems to concede that, under clause (a) of the Minnesota law, the business of regularly publishing and circulating an obscene periodical may be enjoined as a nuisance. It is difficult to perceive any distinction, having any relation to constitutionality, between clause (a) and clause (b) under which this action was brought.
Near v. Minnesota [283 U.S. 697] Hughes Court, Decided 5-4, 6/1/1931 Read the actual decision ... The four dissenting justices argued that the Minnesota law did not constitute prior restraint, in that it allowed a publication to be restrained only after it had demonstrated its willingness to publish obscene, malicious or defamatory materials ...
Start studying Near v. Minnesota. Learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools. Search. ... He was known to make fun of Jews in public. He took on the Near case. Near was not happy with his work. ... Hughes wrote the majority opinion.