What did Near v. Minnesota decide about prior restraint?(1 point) Responses It is allowed when information is reporting on the scandals of public officials. It is allowed when information is reporting on the scandals of public officials. It is allowed if malice against a public official can be proven. It is allowed if malice against a public official can be proven. It is unconstitutional unless information is related to matters of national security. It is unconstitutional unless information is related to matters of national security. It is unconstitutional unless information is proven to be false
1 answer
Near v. Minnesota (1931) decided that prior restraint, or government action that prevents speech or other expression before it can take place, is unconstitutional in most cases. The ruling established that such restraint is generally not allowed unless it relates to matters of national security. Therefore, the correct response is:
It is unconstitutional unless information is related to matters of national security.
