This quote points out that prior restraint is still relevant even when government action happens after speech occurs. It relies on the legal principle that the doctrine is not limited to stopping speech beforehand, showing that courts can consider prior restraint in evaluating the constitutionality of regulations applied after the fact

This quote lays out a detailed way to understand prior restraint, focusing on the timing and method of stopping speech rather than its content. It also separates it from consequences that happen after the fact and connects the idea to both legal reasoning and everyday understanding, making it easier to see how the concept really works in practice.

This quote highlights that prior restraint targets specific cases instead of applying generally. Unlike normal laws or punishments, it stops a particular act of speech before it even happens, which makes it more direct and serious.

This quote helps me to understand the importance of prior restraint. It isn't just punishing someone after they speak it's stopping them from speaking at all.That makes it way more powerful and dangerous than consequences that come after the fact because it takes away the freedom to even try to share your ideas.

when submitting these briefs.. outside voices can influence how courts interpret constitutional rights, including those protected by the first amendment - they ensure broader perspectives are considered in shaping our law.

it is interesting that the justice who writes the opinion needs to make sure it expresses all the views of the justices because it ties back into freedom of speech and the first amendment - the first amendment is very applicable here.

I find it so important and also commendatory that even people with different beliefs can still come together and shake hands out of a sign of respect for one another.

showing that once a decision is made it is almost instantaneous that the government starts to slowly process the case - using the word triggers ( a verb ) shows great effect.