It’s prior restraint, which is commonly mistaken to be illegal. It’s not there’s just a heavy presumption against it and since it’s national security related the court hearings about the subject are usually closed and sealed but the discussion of the governments right to do it aren’t.
New York Times v US 1971
There’s also voluntary prior restraint where a publisher decides not to publish because the effects of publication don’t outweigh getting shutdown under the burden of huge legal fees.
…? that in itself would be news.
also what the fuck is that supposed to be, really? afaik there’s no national security concerns about an old man being dead.
They don’t have to explain the hold for quite some time. Unless something leaks we wouldn’t know
you keep referring to this like it’s a thing. what is it?
I can’t find anything about it.
It’s prior restraint, which is commonly mistaken to be illegal. It’s not there’s just a heavy presumption against it and since it’s national security related the court hearings about the subject are usually closed and sealed but the discussion of the governments right to do it aren’t.
New York Times v US 1971
There’s also voluntary prior restraint where a publisher decides not to publish because the effects of publication don’t outweigh getting shutdown under the burden of huge legal fees.
ah. never heard prior restraint called ‘the hold’ before.
TIL. I was aware about prior restraint; it’s not that it’s illegal, it just keeps being found wanting compared to the first amendment.
but that all may depend on which supreme court it’s going before.