Some people believe that there are no circumstances under which prior restraint of the press, either print or broadcast, should be accepted or tolerated. I disagree with that statement and do believe there are certain times when prior restraint should be accepted or tolerated. This is not an issue that is or should be taken lightly because I am in strong agreement with protecting the First Amendment, however in specific and special cases I can understand the government feeling the need to intervene. First of all, I agree with Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes during the case of Near v....
technical portions or top-secret documents, and still have substance.

In conclusion, I am in agreement with prior restraint of print or broadcast. I believe that there are certain circumstances such as inciting violence or when harm to the nation is at stake, where it is necessary to limit what the press says. Why let something bad or harmful take place if you can do something about it before it starts? Also, just because the government limits the press in a couple of small ways, that does not mean what is published can't be interesting, factual, substantial and worth reading.