ative ▁of ▁the ▁legisl ature ▁to ▁determine ▁not ▁only ▁what ▁the ▁public ▁interests ▁require ▁but ▁also ▁the ▁measures ▁necessary ▁to ▁protect ▁such ▁interests ." ▁ ▁Regarding ▁Near ▁and ▁Gu il ford ' s ▁defense ▁of ▁freedom ▁of ▁the ▁press ▁under ▁article ▁ 1 , ▁section ▁ 3 ▁of ▁the ▁Minnesota ▁Constitution , ▁the ▁State ▁Supreme ▁Court ▁did ▁not ▁believe ▁that ▁the ▁right ▁was ▁intended ▁to ▁protect ▁the ▁publishing ▁of ▁" sc and alous ▁material ", ▁but ▁that ▁it ▁only ▁provided ▁" a ▁shield ▁for ▁the ▁honest , ▁careful ▁and ▁cons cient ious ▁press ," ▁not ▁the ▁" def amer ▁and ▁the ▁sc and alm ong er ." ▁Instead , ▁" he ▁who ▁uses ▁the ▁press ▁is ▁responsible ▁for ▁its ▁ab use ." ▁The ▁court ▁also ▁ruled ▁that ▁the ▁state ▁constitution ' s ▁due ▁process ▁clause ▁did ▁not ▁extend ▁any ▁additional ▁protection . ▁ ▁The ▁trial ▁court ' s ▁decision ▁after ▁rem and ▁The ▁case ▁then ▁returned ▁to ▁the ▁Hen ne pin ▁County ▁District ▁Court , ▁and ▁Near ▁and ▁Gu il ford ▁renew ed ▁their ▁ob jection ▁to ▁the ▁constitution ality ▁of ▁the ▁Public ▁N uis ance ▁Law . ▁Judge ▁Bald win ▁again ▁over ru led ▁their ▁ob jection . ▁Only ▁the ▁verified ▁compla int ▁that ▁Ol son ▁had ▁file d ▁and ▁the ▁newspaper ▁issues ▁themselves ▁were ▁entered ▁as ▁evidence , ▁and ▁the ▁defend ants ▁did ▁not ▁try ▁to ▁argue ▁that ▁the ▁Saturday ▁Press ▁did ▁not ▁fit ▁the ▁definition ▁under ▁the ▁stat ute , ▁or ▁that ▁their ▁published ▁stories ▁were ▁in ▁fact ▁true .