Prior restraint is government action that prohibits speech or other expression before it can take place. Many see this as unconstitutional and a form of censorship. The two forms of prior restraint we see the most often are: a regulation or rule that requires a speaker to obtain some sort of permit/license before speaking or a court order that bans the speech or action. An example of a court order that bans speech or action is known as a "gag order". This order prohibits the parties that are involved in the legal dispute from talking to the press, or anyone else. "Gag orders" can be used to preserve the defendant's right to a fair trial, protect the privacy of victims, protect the integrity of police or military operations, and protect the trade secrets of a company. However, "gag orders" can sometimes be used to intimidate others and prevent the release of important information.
In the early 2000's allegations of prisoner abuse at Guantanamo Bay quickly caught the media's attention and the stories of the alleged abuse immediately became highly circulated. During this time, the U.S. Marine Corps had a gag order issued against two members of the legal team representing a terrorism suspect being held at Guantanamo Bay and threatened punishment if they continued to speak publicly about the reports of abuse within the military facility. The Marine Corps claimed that the gag order was issued to ensure compliance with certain military and professional standards. Although, in theory, gag orders are meant to protect rather than oppress this is a clear example of when they can be used to intimidate or silence a certain side of an issue. The attorneys defending the prisoners are members of the military as well and also have a Juris Doctorate so they most likely are aware of the guidelines they should comply with and how to act professionally within those guidelines while at the same time functioning as an effective attorney. Many see this use of a gag order controversial because they believe that the military was using the guise of concern for sensitive military/government information to try and censor the information that was being brought to the media regarding the allegations of abuse. The use of a gag order in this situation sets the precedent that certain groups or government/military employees do not quite have as much freedom to speak as they choose regarding certain topics like the rest of the general public. This creates a kind of grey area and demonstrates how prior restraint could potentially infringe on First Amendment rights. I believe that one of the most important qualities of a modern day government is transparency so the use of prior restraint in this situation was kind of concerning.
In the early 2000's allegations of prisoner abuse at Guantanamo Bay quickly caught the media's attention and the stories of the alleged abuse immediately became highly circulated. During this time, the U.S. Marine Corps had a gag order issued against two members of the legal team representing a terrorism suspect being held at Guantanamo Bay and threatened punishment if they continued to speak publicly about the reports of abuse within the military facility. The Marine Corps claimed that the gag order was issued to ensure compliance with certain military and professional standards. Although, in theory, gag orders are meant to protect rather than oppress this is a clear example of when they can be used to intimidate or silence a certain side of an issue. The attorneys defending the prisoners are members of the military as well and also have a Juris Doctorate so they most likely are aware of the guidelines they should comply with and how to act professionally within those guidelines while at the same time functioning as an effective attorney. Many see this use of a gag order controversial because they believe that the military was using the guise of concern for sensitive military/government information to try and censor the information that was being brought to the media regarding the allegations of abuse. The use of a gag order in this situation sets the precedent that certain groups or government/military employees do not quite have as much freedom to speak as they choose regarding certain topics like the rest of the general public. This creates a kind of grey area and demonstrates how prior restraint could potentially infringe on First Amendment rights. I believe that one of the most important qualities of a modern day government is transparency so the use of prior restraint in this situation was kind of concerning.
Williams, C. J. (2006, October 15). Marine Corps Issues Gag Order in Detainee Abuse Case. The Los Angeles Time. Web. October 23, 2017. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/2006/oct/15/nation/na-gitmo15
Guantanamo Bay is highly debated within the United States, with strong view points on both sides. As you stated, “gag orders” forbid parties from discussing certain information to the public, especially the press. Many believe governments can use “gag orders” to censor information they do not want released and as a way to go around the First Amendment. Whether or not this instance of prior restraint by the government was reasonable or for the best interest of the public is up for debate. However, I found your blog post quite interesting because it provides a good example of prior restraint on a highly debated topic.
ReplyDeleteAlthough detailing the event provides a good example of prior restraint, it is also important to understand why the government chooses to enact prior restraint. I’m not saying that the government doesn’t use prior restraint for censorship purposes or for their own personal agenda. However, sensitive government information could be argued as a legitimate reason for prior restraint. Even though most governments argue that they enact prior restraint to protect the public’s interest, it does not mean that it isn’t actually needed. In this case with Guantanamo Bay, military officials believed that speaking about how the military dealt with prisoners would comprise national security. I am by no means an expert in the field of world politics, especially what goes on “behind the scenes”, but this could be argued as an instance when prior restraint was needed. On the other hand, it could also keep injustices from being discovered, like you mentioned above. Where to draw the line of when prior restraint is acceptable and when it isn’t, is open for interpretation. In this instance, certain individuals may feel that national security is more important, while others believe the public has the right know about the treatment of prisoners.