▁of ▁the ▁truth ▁of ▁the ▁charges ▁contained ▁in ▁the ▁particular ▁period ical . ▁The ▁fact ▁that ▁the ▁public ▁officers ▁named ▁in ▁this ▁case , ▁and ▁those ▁associated ▁with ▁the ▁charges ▁of ▁official ▁der el iction , ▁may ▁be ▁de emed ▁to ▁be ▁im pe cc able ▁cannot ▁affect ▁the ▁conclusion ▁that ▁the ▁stat ute ▁impos es ▁an ▁un const itution al ▁rest raint ▁upon ▁publication . ▁ ▁Note ▁that ▁the ▁paragraph ▁above ▁c ites ▁the ▁Four teenth ▁Am end ment ▁and ▁not ▁the ▁First ▁Am end ment . ▁This ▁is ▁because ▁the ▁Four teenth ▁Am end ment ▁incorpor ates ▁the ▁First ▁and ▁makes ▁it ▁applicable ▁to ▁the ▁States . ▁As ▁literally ▁written , ▁the ▁First ▁Am end ment ▁applies ▁to ▁Congress ▁and ▁the ▁federal ▁government , ▁not ▁the ▁states . ▁ ▁This ▁case ▁strength ened ▁the ▁notion ▁that ▁a ▁prior ▁rest raint ▁of ▁the ▁press ▁viol ates ▁the ▁First ▁Am end ment . ▁However , ▁it ▁left ▁a ▁loop hole ▁which ▁would ▁be ▁used ▁later ▁for ▁other ▁prior ▁rest raint ▁cases , ▁cit ing ▁certain ▁circumstances ▁in ▁which ▁prior ▁rest raint ▁could ▁potentially ▁be ▁used : ▁The ▁ob jection ▁has ▁also ▁been ▁made ▁that ▁the ▁principle ▁as ▁to ▁imm unity ▁from ▁previous ▁rest raint ▁is ▁stated ▁too ▁broad ly , ▁if ▁every ▁such ▁rest raint ▁is ▁de emed ▁to ▁be ▁prohib ited . ▁That ▁is ▁und ou bt edly ▁true ; ▁the ▁protection ▁even ▁as ▁to ▁previous ▁rest raint ▁is ▁not ▁absolutely ▁un limited . ▁But ▁the ▁limitation ▁has ▁been ▁recognized ▁only ▁in