Court Permits Violation of Prior Restraint

A newspaper cannot be held in contempt for defying a “transparently invalid” court order restricting publication, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.

The ruling breaks past court rulings that said court orders must be obeyed even if they are later found to be invalid.

“A party subject to an order that constitutes a transparently invalid prior restraint on pure speech may challenge the order by violating it,” a three-judge panel of the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals ruled.

Paper, Editor Named

The appeals court overturned the criminal contempt-of-court citation against the Providence (R.I.) Journal-Bulletin and its executive editor, Charles Hauser.

The newspaper, on Nov. 14, 1985, published a story including secretly recorded conversations of a reputed organized crime boss, despite a temporary restraining order barring publication issued one day earlier by a district court judge.

U.S. District Court Judge Francis Boyle fined the newspaper $100,000 and imposed an 18-month suspended jail term on Hauser, who was ordered to perform 200 hours of public service.

‘Extremely Significant’

“This is an extremely significant ruling because it tells not only the press but all other speakers that if there is an order that is plainly unconstitutional (that) it need not be obeyed,” said lawyer Floyd Abrams of New York, who represented the newspaper.

“Had the court (ruled) against the Journal, I believe we would have seen more prior restraints against the press and ultimately found ourselves in a situation where we could no longer say that we live in a society basically free of prior restraint against speech or publication,” Abrams said.

Justice Department spokeswoman Wendy Keats said the department “will be reviewing the decision to see if it wishes to take further action.”