bearing a heavy presumption in California

2013(New York Times Co. v. United States (1971) 403 U.S. 713, 714 [“‘Any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.’ [Citations.]”]; DVD Copy Control Assn., Inc. v. Bunner (2003) 31 Cal.4th 864, 886 .) “The term ‘prior restraint’ is used ‘to describe administrative and judicial orders forbidding certain communications when issued in advance of the time that such communications are to occur.’ [Citation.] Temporary restraining orders and permanent injunctions—i.e., court orders that actually forbid speech activities—a

2007"Any system of prior restraint ... `comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.' Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan , 372 U.S. [58], at 70[, 83 S.Ct. 631 , 9 L.Ed.2d 584 (1963) ]; New York Times Co. v. United States , 403 U.S. [713], at 714[, 91 S.Ct. 2140 , 29 L.Ed.2d 822 (1971) ]; [citations].

2007"Any system of prior restraint ... `comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.' Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan , 372 U.S. [58], at 70[, 83 S.Ct. 631 , 9 L.Ed.2d 584 (1963) ]; New York Times Co. v. United States , 403 U.S. [713], at 714[, 91 S.Ct. 2140 , 29 L.Ed.2d 822 (1971) ]; [citations].

2007"Any system of prior restraint ... `comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.' Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan , 372 U.S. [58], at 70[, 83 S.Ct. 631 , 9 L.Ed.2d 584 (1963) ]; New York Times Co. v. United States , 403 U.S. [713], at 714[, 91 S.Ct. 2140 , 29 L.Ed.2d 822 (1971) ]; [citations].

2023(Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad (1975) 420 U.S. 546, 558 .) “Any system of prior restraint, however, ‘comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.’” (Ibid.) The doctrine of prior restraints applies only to speech and expressive conduct that is protected by the First Amendment. “‘[T]here are categories of communication and certain special utterances to which the majestic protection of the First Amendment does not extend because they “are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any

1976Moreover, since “[a]ny system of prior restraint. . . ‘comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitu *463 tional validity.’ Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. at 70 . . . .” (Southeastern Promotions Ltd. v. Conrad (1974) 420 U.S. 546, 558 [ 43 L.Ed.2d 448, 459 , 95 S.Ct. 1239 ]; see also Wilson v. Superior Court (1975) 13 Cal.3d 652, 656-657 [ 119 Cal.Rptr. 468 , 532 P.2d 116 ]) and since former sections 9012 and 9013 for which section 10611 was a replacement had just been declared unconstitutional by the Rowe court because they purported to permit prior restraints

1999The court of appeals rejected the argument that an injunction against such solicitation necessarily would constitute an invalid prior restraint on expression: "A prior restraint is a government regulation that limits or conditions in advance the exercise of protected First Amendment activity. [Citation.] Although the classic form of prior restraint involves an administrative licensing scheme, [citation], a judicial injunction that prohibits speech prior to a determination that the speech is unprotected also constitutes a prior restraint. [Citation.] Any system of prior restraints of speech `co

1999The court of appeals rejected the argument that an injunction against such solicitation necessarily would constitute an invalid prior restraint on expression: "A prior restraint is a government regulation that limits or conditions in advance the exercise of protected First Amendment activity. [Citation.] Although the classic form of prior restraint involves an administrative licensing scheme, [citation], a judicial injunction that prohibits speech prior to a determination that the speech is unprotected also constitutes a prior restraint. [Citation.] Any system of prior restraints of speech `co

1982The denial of a permit to engage in a constitutionally protected activity is a total prior restraint, and as such comes to a court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity (EWAP, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d 179, 185 [ 158 Cal.Rptr. 579 ]).

1982The denial of a permit to engage in a constitutionally protected activity is a total prior restraint, and as such comes to a court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity (EWAP, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d 179, 185 [ 158 Cal.Rptr. 579 ]).

1976Moreover, since “[a]ny system of prior restraint. . . ‘comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitu *463 tional validity.’ Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. at 70 . . . .” (Southeastern Promotions Ltd. v. Conrad (1974) 420 U.S. 546, 558 [ 43 L.Ed.2d 448, 459 , 95 S.Ct. 1239 ]; see also Wilson v. Superior Court (1975) 13 Cal.3d 652, 656-657 [ 119 Cal.Rptr. 468 , 532 P.2d 116 ]) and since former sections 9012 and 9013 for which section 10611 was a replacement had just been declared unconstitutional by the Rowe court because they purported to permit prior restraints

1976Moreover, since “[a]ny system of prior restraint. . . ‘comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitu *463 tional validity.’ Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. at 70 . . . .” (Southeastern Promotions Ltd. v. Conrad (1974) 420 U.S. 546, 558 [ 43 L.Ed.2d 448, 459 , 95 S.Ct. 1239 ]; see also Wilson v. Superior Court (1975) 13 Cal.3d 652, 656-657 [ 119 Cal.Rptr. 468 , 532 P.2d 116 ]) and since former sections 9012 and 9013 for which section 10611 was a replacement had just been declared unconstitutional by the Rowe court because they purported to permit prior restraints