stating the Supreme Court “has never held that all injunctions are impermissible” and noting that “[t]he special vice of a prior restraint is that communication will be suppressed . . . before an adequate determination that it is unprotected by the First Amendment"
How later courts described this case
- stating the Supreme Court “has never held that all injunctions are impermissible” and noting that “[t]he special vice of a prior restraint is that communication will be suppressed . . . before an adequate determination that it is unprotected by the First Amendment"
- holding that discriminatory advertisements are illegal commercial speech entitled to no First Amendment protection
- holding that speech involving a “proposal of possible employment” is commercial speech
- holding that ordinance making it unlawful to “aid” sexually discriminatory employment practices could be constitutionally applied to bar newspaper advertisements for sex-designated employment
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Mr. Justice Blackmun,
dissenting.
I dissent substantially for the reasons stated by Mr. Justice Stewart in his opinion. But I do not subscribe to the statements contained in that paragraph of his opinion which begins on p. 402 and ends on p. 403.