After New York Times v. United States, is prior restraint of media ever possible in the United States? Explain briefly.

What will be an ideal response?

In New York Times v. United States, the Court did not close the door to all prior restraint. While it is the least permissible form of speech regulation, prior restraint is still possible under certain extraordinary conditions that the Court did not lay out explicitly except to say that the government bears a very heavy burden of proof to justify prior restraints. The Court also said prior restraints may be constitutional to stop an extreme, clear, and present danger to a government interest of the highest order. These conditions certainly include some situations that raise national security concerns. The Court suggested that prior restraints could be constitutional to prevent: (a) obstruction of military recruitment, (b) publication of troop locations, numbers, and movements in time of war, (c) obscene publications, (d) incitements to violence, (e) incitements to forcible overthrow of government, and (f) expression of fighting words likely to promote imminent violence.