<Dd> "The principles enunciated in Near were so universally accepted that the precise issue did not come before us again until Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415 (1971). There the state courts had enjoined the petitioners from picketing or passing out literature of any kind in a specified area . Noting the similarity to Near vs. Minnesota, a unanimous Court held: <Dl> <Dd> "Here, as in that case, the injunction operates, not to redress alleged private wrongs, but to suppress, on the basis of previous publications, distribution of literature' of any kind' in a city of 18,000 . </Dd> <Dd>... </Dd> <Dd> "Any prior restraint on expression comes to this Court with a' heavy presumption' against its constitutional validity . Carroll vs. Princess Anne, 393 U.S. 175, 181 (1968); Bantam Books, Inc. vs. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 70 (1963). Respondent thus carries a heavy burden of showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint ." </Dd> </Dl> </Dd> <Dl> <Dd> "Here, as in that case, the injunction operates, not to redress alleged private wrongs, but to suppress, on the basis of previous publications, distribution of literature' of any kind' in a city of 18,000 . </Dd> <Dd>... </Dd> <Dd> "Any prior restraint on expression comes to this Court with a' heavy presumption' against its constitutional validity . Carroll vs. Princess Anne, 393 U.S. 175, 181 (1968); Bantam Books, Inc. vs. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 70 (1963). Respondent thus carries a heavy burden of showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint ." </Dd> </Dl> <Dd> "Here, as in that case, the injunction operates, not to redress alleged private wrongs, but to suppress, on the basis of previous publications, distribution of literature' of any kind' in a city of 18,000 . </Dd> <Dd> "Any prior restraint on expression comes to this Court with a' heavy presumption' against its constitutional validity . Carroll vs. Princess Anne, 393 U.S. 175, 181 (1968); Bantam Books, Inc. vs. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 70 (1963). Respondent thus carries a heavy burden of showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint ." </Dd>

Laws restricting hate speech have typically been upheld by the supreme court