Eight decades after the death of a reckless newspaperman named Jay Near, his phantom keeps popping up in courthouses across America.
The landmark 1931 U.S. Supreme Court case that bears his name, Near vs. Minnesota, invalidated the state's newspaper gag law, which had been used to suppress Near's Minneapolis scandal sheet, the Saturday Press.
By severely restricting the government's ability to stifle speech before it happens, the 5-4 decision effectively upheld freedom of the press in the U.S.
The decision was cited last month by a lawyer who successfully fought an effort by the Mall of America to silence social media postings about a Black Lives Matter protest. Also last month, it ensured a Hopkins man's right to criticize his condominium association. It stopped a Bloomington City Council candidate's short-lived effort in October to suppress an unflattering newspaper story.
Steven Aggergaard, a Minneapolis attorney with a particular interest in the First Amendment, found the ruling cited more than 1,200 times in published cases, although the effect of Near vs. Minnesota no doubt extends much further.
"It's a federal principle of law that government really cannot restrict speech before it has the opportunity to occur," Aggergaard said. "The U.S. Supreme Court made it clear that you can punish speech. You just can't prevent it."
Aggergaard and I are among a perhaps very small group of people to perk up whenever a judge invokes the name of Near and his famous court case. Not that Near was any paragon of journalism.
Near was "anti-Catholic, anti-Semitic, anti-black and anti-labor," former CBS executive and journalism historian Fred Friendly wrote in his 1982 book, "Minnesota Rag." Near's publications wallowed in sleaze, publishing thinly sourced allegations about crimes and sexual transgressions by prominent people that sometimes crossed the line into blackmail.