A Violation Of The Espionage Laws

The court case of New York Times vs Sullivan was a case that involved public officials and how they were libeled in the press in the year of nineteen sixty four. L.B. Sullivan was one of three elected commissioners of Alabama. The respondent was L. B. Sullivan was a public official from Alabama and brought a lawsuit against an clergymen, a negro and against a petitioner of the New York Times Company. L.B. Sullivan sued all of these people because he felt that he was libeled in a advertisement of the New York Times. The case had to deal with if the constitutional protections of speech and press limit the states power to award damages for the libel action brought by a public official against the critics of his official conduct.

The use of U.S Government Acts to surveil it's citizens and corrupt can be traced back to 1917, when the Espionage Act first took place. The Espionage Act was a law which prohibited many forms of speech, including any "disloyal,profane,scurrilous, or abusive" language about the form of Government in the United States. This law was later extended under the name of The sedition act of 1918 to "cover a broader range of offenses,notably speech and expression of opinion" that obstructed the war effort.As time passed the laws were slowly extended, it was until the Red Scare hysteria when the fear of the bolshevist and anarchism kicked in and the justification was "the safety of the people".To Avoid for

The two provisions that were struck down revolved around the 4th Amendment of unreasonable search and seizures in regard to intelligence gathering. This ruling stems from a case where the federal government arrested an attorney in the United States in connection with his alleged involvement with the 2004 Madrid train bombings. The lawsuit stated that the FBI illegally and secretly broke into both his home and office to gather evidence and were being protected under provisions of the US Patriot Act.

     On April 2nd 1917, President Woodrow Wilson of the United States of America, ??went before Congress and called for a declaration of war. Both the House and the Senate voted overwhelmingly in favor of going to war with Germany.?# This was an act that led to much resistance among the American people. Not four months earlier the American people re-elected President Wilson, partly because of his success in keeping the United States out of this European war. However, a series of events, such as the Germans continuing submarine warfare and the attacks on five American ships, led President Wilson to sever diplomatic relations with Germany and send the United States into what

The case New York Times Co. Vs United States in summary was a first amendment battle between the United States government and the prominent newspaper cooperation New York Times in 1971. The premises of this legal battle was based on the New York Times reporter Daniel Ellsberg publishing in excerpts illegally leaked, classified documents containing the United States involvement in the Vietnam War specifically on the anticipated death counts (Institution, 2015, p. n .p). However, The United States government finding out about leakage placed a prior restraint also known as “government action that prohibits speech or other expression before it can take place” on New York Times cooperation based on National Security grounds (Prior Restraint, 2015). The case, despite the over powering strength of the nation and the accusations against the New York Times Cooperation the case was ruled in favor of the New York Times by the Supreme Court (Curry, Riley, & Battistoni, 2015, p. 458).

American citizens were not pleased with the fact their rights were being violated. The Sedition Acts made it illegal for newspaper editors to criticize the government. The government imposed punishments for editors who violated this law. This act violated the freedom of the press, which is under the First Amendment. Stated in Document F, “the liberty of conscience and the press cannot be canceled, abridged, restrained, or modified by any authority of the United States.” By even appointing these acts, it meant the federal government was exercising a power that was never given to them in the first place. Document F states, “Alien and Seditions Acts, passed at the last session of Congress; the first of which exercises a power nowhere delegated to the federal government”. The administration’s foreign policy was not protecting Americans, rather violating their

Before World War One, people were allowed to watch, write, or say anything they wanted to as long as they weren’t harming anyone. However, the Republicans and Democrats were arguing over whether or not we should have more censorship. The Democrats wanted more censorship, but Republicans didn’t want more censorship. As it was stated in document 1, they didn’t want the president to be able to block himself from getting criticism. The Espionage and Sedition Acts were put in place so that people couldn’t interfere with the success of the army, it was to help find people who were disloyal to the army.

The issue of Tinker v. Des Moines ISD was that students were to wear black arm bands to school in protest of the Vietnam War; however the school warned that anyone wearing the armbands would be would be suspended, but the Tinker children wore their armbands to school (they were the only ones of the group to do so) and were suspended leading to Mr. and Mrs. Tinker filing a law suit claiming that the school violated the children's right to freedom of speech and expression. The court ruled against the school district saying that "students do not shed their constitutional rights at the school house gates. In doing so the court protected what has come to be known as "symbolic speech." In the case of Engle v. Vitale, the Supreme Court ruled that prayers in schools were considered unconstitutional, leading to a ban of all prayers led by teachers in school, even if the prayer was considered voluntary, stating, in a way, that there was some sort of “separation of church and state” which is not true. Lastly, New York Times v. Sullivan focused more on the freedom of the press, ruling that “actual malice” must be proven to support a finding of libel against a public figure.

To sum, the case is about an advertising the newspaper included some inaccurate story about the civic leaders, civil right events, and Sullivan. Sullivan (a public official) believed that the defamatory comments that were made of him were making a negative impact on his life, thus he sued the New York times. The court in Alabama at the time ruled “The law … implies legal injury from bare facts of publication itself, falsity and malice are presumed, general damages no need to presume.” Thus, the court from Alabama gave Sullivan a compensation of five hundred thousand dollars. New York times decided to take this case to the supreme court because they believe their 1st amendment rights were being violated. Therefore, a new question arose whether the first amendment protects defamatory, false statements concerning public officials? The court ruled that the 1st amendment does protect the publication of all statements, even false ones, concerning the conduct of a public official except when the statement was made with actual malice. Once again, we notice the irony of freedom of speech the issue is citizens are not informed that under the 1st amendment there is sufficient rights guarantee. It is not solely having the right to express our emotions towards the government, it is to expose information to citizens and have the citizens decided for themselves. Democracy does not work if the government or public official try to hide information from its citizens. Democracy function when there is a clear majority of press that expose the truth and allow people to determine what the issue is. Press must be able to protect us against an overreaching government. Sometimes executive power tries to control the press because they do not want to inform the truth about that for example the Watergates scandal, Edward Snowden, Wiki leaks and

Privacy; the state of being free from being observed or being disturbed. Things such as credit card companies, ads on television, warnings on the evening news, and even locker searches at school all directly contradict the definition of “privacy”.

Under the First Amendment, the founders intended to create a press that could inform the general public of government affairs. The Founders did this in response to the oppressive action of the British government, including the trial of John Paul Zenger. In Branzburg v. Hayes, a plurality and a concurrence within this Court recognized that the First Amendment included a privilege that protected journalists from being compelled to divulge a source to a grand jury. Because there was no clear majority, the narrowest holding of the plurality and the concurrence is considered the controlling opinion. Further, there is an overwhelming consensus among circuit courts that the privilege exists. This privilege protects journalists when the interest in

Treason in America is the only offense that is defined in the law of land; Article III section 3 of the constitution which provides for the elements of the crime. The law provides that a person shall only be convicted on this offense on the corroboration of at least two witnesses' testimonies in a court of law. This offense strikes directly at the core of legal order formations and foundations of the existence of the country. Consequently, it is the Congress that has been bestowed with the inherent powers to declare the punishment for treason that occasionally mount to execute or life imprisonment.

In the past, there has always been conflict between the free press and the government. This conflict was very evident in the Pentagon Papers case, also known as New York Times Co. v. United States. Historically, the Supreme Court has disagreed on the limitations that can be placed on the First Amendment. The Supreme Court faced these issues in the case of The New York Times. The newspaper obtained a copy of a Defense Department report that explained government deception in the Vietnam War. The Pentagon Papers emerged when the American people disagreed on the United States involvement in the war. Under the First Amendment, The New York Times argued

Canadian and American spies helped to advance spy schools, change society's gender roles, and develop and further technology throughout the Second World War, all the while retrieving foreign information and secrets. All of these additions to war and society led to the extensive use of espionage in the Cold War. Merriam-Webster dictionary defines espionage as the actions that are done to find out secrets from enemies or competitors; the activity of spying. This is exactly what Canada and the United States did in the second World War, and eventually the Cold War. The main reason there was a need for spies in World War II was to stealthily retrieve important information from the enemy. Although the ways of obtaining this goal are limitless, they all fall under the common category of espionage. It is evident that useful information, such as foreign secrets, could not simply be obtained by asking the enemy. Thus, a need for spies was developed. Agencies such as the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency), formerly the OSS (Office of Strategic

The term “Covert Action” brings with it a connotation of shadowy figures wrapped in secrecy and intrigue. It also brings with it a substantial amount of moral questions as to “what is right.” The use of covert action has been widely publicized since the early seventies, but trying to find out the truth to these events has been difficult to say the least. What is even more difficult, is historically recording these events into categories of successes or failures. These operations are difficult to dissect because of their secrecy and although events have been recorded, some facts simply aren’t apparent. This paper will seek to identify the complex issues associated with covert operations.