Even where questions of allegedly urgent national security, or competing constitutional interests, are concerned, we have imposed this "most extraordinary remedy" only where the evil that would result from the reportage is both great and certain and cannot be militated by less intrusive measures.

Subsequent civil or criminal proceedings, rather than prior restraints, ordinarily are the appropriate sanction for calculated defamation or other misdeeds in the First Amendment context

Justice Blackmun, as Circuit Justice, staying a preliminary injunction prohibiting CBS from airing footage of inside of meat packing plant

Moreover, it would be difficult to dispute, and Defendants have not attempted to do so, that this right was clearly established by the time the alleged cancellation of the reservations took place or that a similarly situated reasonable official would not have understood that the challenged actions violated this right.

Even if economic harm were sufficient in itself to justify a prior restraint, however, we previously have refused to rely on such speculative predictions as based on `factors unknown and unknowable'.... If CBS has breached its state law obligations, the First Amendment requires that Federal remedy its harms through a damages proceeding rather than through suppression …

Justice Blackmun, as a circuit justice, overturned an injunction issued by a South Dakota state judge that would have prohibited the network from airing videotape taken at a beef processing plant

Threat of criminal sanctions imposed following speech is not sufficient to constitute a prior restraint

"It has been clearly established that any prior restraint on expression comes to this Court with a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity."