As the Supreme Court said in Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415, 419 (1971), in declaring a defamation-based injunction to be an impermissible prior restraint, “No prior decisions support the claim that the interest of an individual in being free from public criticism of his business practices in pamphlets or leaflets warrants use 3 Section 230(c)(1) provides “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” Section 230(e)(3) provides, in part, “No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.” 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 of the injunctive power of a court.”
Even alleged falsity of speech is not a sufficient basis for removing it from First Amendment protection unless the plaintiff satisfies the standards (such as the actual malice requirement) that the Supreme Court has enunciated for defamation claims. United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. 709, 717 (2012) And the Arizona Court of Appeals has held, “Absent a clear finding supported by the evidence that a given expression is unentitled to First Amendment protection, a prior restraint should not issue and cannot stand.” State ex rel. Corbin v. Tolleson, 160 Ariz, 385, 396, 773 P.2d 490, 501 (App. 1989).
