How Bad Facts Make Good First Amendment Law

The article frames Near v. Minnesota (1931) through a libertarian lens that decouples legal principle from moral judgment of the plaintiff. By acknowledging Near's odious character while defending the First Amendment precedent his case created, the piece centers a classical liberal defense of free speech rights over social context. Reason's framing is characteristic of right-leaning civil libertarianism—it defends speech protections even when the speaker is contemptible, avoiding both conservative calls to restrict 'bad' speech and progressive emphasis on marginalized voices.

Primary voices: media outlet, academic or expert

• This article does not address the impact of Near v. Minnesota on subsequent censorship of marginalized press outlets
• This article does not discuss competing frameworks that balance free speech with other constitutional values