In 9th grade learning about the Constitution, we took up the topic of “prior restraint” of the press fresh off the Pentagon Papers SC case. The difference between EU and US in this regard is pretty important in light of current discussions. Grok summary of prior restraint both voluntary and mandatory: **US Approach (First Amendment)**: Prior restraint is presumptively unconstitutional and bears a "heavy presumption against its constitutional validity." It is almost never permitted, with only extremely narrow exceptions (e.g., wartime troop movements, obscenity, or incitement to violence posing clear and present danger). Courts overwhelmingly favors post-publication remedies (damages or criminal sanctions) over pre-publication censorship. Cases like *Near v. Minnesota* (1931) and *New York Times v. United States* (Pentagon Papers, 1971) established this near-absolute bar. **EU/ECHR Approach (Article 10 ECHR & EU Charter Article 11)**: Prior restraints are not prohibited per se but are subjected to the "most careful scrutiny" due to their inherent dangers and chilling effect on the press. They are permissible only if strictly prescribed by law, pursue a legitimate aim (e.g., national security, privacy, reputation, public safety), and are necessary and proportionate in a democratic society. European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has repeatedly upheld that prior restraints require exceptional justification but are not categorically invalid (e.g., *Observer and Guardian v. UK* (Spycatcher case, 1991)). **Practical Outcome**: European courts (including in the UK pre- and post-Brexit, and across EU states) routinely grant interim injunctions to block publication in privacy (*Von Hannover v. Germany*), defamation, or confidentiality cases. US courts almost never do, viewing prior restraint as worse than any harm from publication. **Voluntary Restraint**: Both systems allow voluntary self-censorship or agreements not to publish (e.g., settlements or off-the-record arrangements), but Europe has more institutionalised voluntary mechanisms (e.g., UK DA-Notices or press cooperation with authorities on national security), while the US press is more likely to resist voluntary government requests due to the strong cultural and legal aversion to any pre-publication interference. Overall, the US treats prior restraint (mandatory or encouraged) as anathema to free expression; the EU treats it as a legitimate but heavily scrutinised tool when rights must be balanced.