The landmark Near vs. Minnesota U.S. Supreme Court decision sets a very high bar for the government to stop a news organization from publishing a story. That didn't stop Jefferson County (Ala.) Circuit Judge Robert S. Vance from granting a gas company's request to block the Montgomery Advertiser from publishing details of safety plan that the newspaper had obtained through a public records request.

Alagasco trotted out the "terrorists will use this as a blueprint for mayhem" argument, the same excuse employed by all kinds of industries to prevent scrutiny of the dangers they pose to communities without any sabotage at all. What's disturbing is that a judge actually listened, and thought that concern trumped the First Amendment's guarantee of a free press, before the newspaper even had a chance to respond.

Back in 1931, the Near vs. Minnesota ruling established that "prior restraint" of the press was unconstitutional except in very limited circumstances, such as publishing troop movements at a time of war. The tradition of press freedom has served this country well, and has rightly made this aspect of American democracy an example for the world.

The Advertiser requested this information after a gas explosion destroyed an apartment house in Birmingham, Ala., killing one woman and injuring seven others. Federal investigators have said they suspect a gas leak, but the investigation continues. The Advertiser and its partner, USA Today, are doing their job, reporting on a subject of obvious public concern. Judge Vance has scheduled a hearing Monday on this issue, and if justice is served, this ruling should crawl back in the hole it came out of.

Photo from the AL.com shows the aftermath of the explosion in December 2013.