Newspaper theft is a crime where significant portion of a newspaper print or other publication is stolen or destroyed in order to prevent others from reading its content, including those publications that are available for free. It is most commonly undertaken by individuals, organization, or governments and is considered a form of censorship.

The motivation for newspaper theft is usually to suppress circulation of a story, item, or advertisement that is viewed as unfavorable or offensive by an individual or group. In some cases, the action is motivated by a generalized animus toward the editorial slant of the publication. The actors involved in newspaper thefts vary; they include political groups, fraternities and sororities, college athletic teams, as well as politicians or public officials, who may order police or other government agents to remove copies of the publication.

The Student Press Law Center (SPLC) has tracked college newspaper thefts since 2000. Total newspaper thefts reported to the SPLC peaked in 2002 with 94,000 copies being stolen in that year in 33 separate instances of theft.

Theft is defined in the Encyclopædia Britannica as, "the physical removal of an object that is capable of being stolen without the consent of the owner and with the intention of depriving the owner of it permanently". The unpaid taking of newspapers which are for sale constitutes a theft, as does unauthorized taking of newspapers that have been delivered to subscribers or have yet to be distributed. People's right to distribute and consume the content contained in newspapers is not only protected by individual rights to property, but also protected against government seizure under first amendment rights which prevent the government from limiting the freedom of expression, although the right of private individuals or organizations to do so varies by state and local law.

In response to high-profile incidents, laws specifically against newspaper theft, including the theft of large numbers of free newspapers, which does not constitute theft under U.S. federal law, have been passed in the states of Maryland, Colorado, and California and the cities of San Francisco and Berkeley, California. However, in July 2012 a commission that reviews laws recommended that Colorado's law making the theft of free newspapers a crime be repealed, the Colorado legislator then repealed the law and the theft of free newspapers is no longer a crime in Colorado as of July 2013. The Maryland law makes it a misdemeanor offense when "A person ... knowingly or willfully obtain[s] or exert[s] control that is unauthorized over newspapers with the intent to prevent another from reading the newspapers." These laws are based on a logic that newspapers, especially less powerful local papers with smaller print runs, serve a valuable expression of speech that must be protected from censorship which cannon otherwise be prosecuted as a theft.

A related and less common phenomenon is the clandestine purchase of a large portion of the print run of a newspaper. While this does not normally violate any law, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled in the 2004 case Rossignol v. Voorhaar that public officials who purchase a large portion of the print run of a newspaper with the intention of keeping a story out of the view of the public are acting in violation of the First Amendment and are liable for civil damages. This decision was later upheld by Supreme Court without hearing. The decision was made on the basis that these officials were in violation of both 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Md. Code, Criminal Law § 7- 106(b).

There have been various instances where governments or private individuals, directly related to their role or conduct within government or as a government official, will use newspaper theft as a tool to censure newspapers and other publications. This action is generally undertaken to limit the spread of information that is viewed as unsavory by the thief. The following are specific examples of instances of censorship through the use newspaper theft by government officials.

A summary of the facts of the case area as follows: Kenneth Rossignol is the owner of the St. Mary's Today newspaper, a weekly newspaper in St. Mary's County, Maryland that was known for being critical of local officials, including Richard Voorhaar, the county sheriff. Voorhaar anticipated that the November 1998 election day print of the St. Mary's Today would be especially critical of Voorhaar and other candidates supported by Voorhaar, including his close friend and candidate for St. Mary's County States's Attorney, Richard Fritz. As a result, deputies in the Sheriff's Office devised a plan to buy out all the copies of the St. Mary's Today that were being sold around the county in order to limit the spread of the information that it contained and "to piss [Rossignol] off", with $500 each being committed to the plan by Voorhaar and Fritz. The headline for that day's issue of the St. Mary's Today was "Fritz Guilty of Rape", referencing a case that involved Fritz dating from 1965. The issue also included various other articles that were critical of Fritz and Voorhaar and place them in a negative light, including an instance where Voorhaar poorly handled a case of sexual harassment in the Sheriff's Office. Of the 6,000 copies of the St. Mary's Today that were issue on election day, at least 1,600 of the copies were either purchased or seized before 7:00 am by deputies, making them very difficult to find around the town. Richard Voorhaar won his bid for reelection as Sheriff and Richard Fritz was elected to his first term as State's Attorney. In November 1999 Rossignol sued Voorhaar, Fritz, and the deputies that were involved. In January 2003 Chief Judge Wilkinson of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the fourth circuit decided in favor of Rossignol. Rossignol later received a settlement of $435,000 in April 2005.