> That case is talking about freedom of the press for the obvious reason that the parties there are the New York Times and Washington Post; print publications.

> That case is talking about freedom of the press for the obvious reason that the parties there are the New York Times and Washington Post; print publications. Where are you getting the idea that the same wouldn't apply to freedom of speech? Because the concurring, but minority opinion is a joint press freedom and speech freedom argument, but the majority of the court didn't agree with the argument, hence it being a minority concurring opinion. > In which case did the Supreme Court say that? For one example of many, Near v Minnesota. "No one would question but that a government might prevent actual obstruction to its recruiting service or the publication of the sailing dates of transports or the number and location of troops."