Ellsberg Vs Nixon Era Summary

Government censorship continued with the passing of the Espionage Act in 1917 and the Sedition Amendment in 1918. The Espionage Act and Sedition Amendment condemned any antiwar activity or desecrating of the government, Constitution, flag, or military. The American public could not have an opinion, unless that opinion supported the war and government. Even Wilson stated, "Woe be to the man or group of men that seeks to stand in our way." Government censorship and “unpatriotic acts”, as deemed by the Espionage Act and Sedition Amendment, gave birth to a suspicious nation.

After the Espionage Act, came the Sedition Act in 1918. The Sedition Act did not allow language “tending to incite, provoke, and encourage resistance to the United States in said war”. This Act infringed further on people’s First Amendment rights. Individuals’ abilities to express themselves were curtailed. One of the people that went against this Act was Joseph Abrams. Abrams was a Russian immigrant who did not agree with the Americans invading Russia. Because of this,

In different ways, one can argue whether that is true or not. He also said that the Espionage Act broke the First Amendment's promise ther “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech” which it stated in the Bill of Rights(Schenck v. United States). The government has the power to limit your right if it sees that you can cause a threat to the nation. Schenck was a potention threat to the nation, and therefor the safety of the country and for the people allowed for the government to limit his speech.

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.

As the Vietnam War dragged on, with more than 500,000 U.S. troops in Vietnam by 1968, military analyst Daniel Ellsberg, came to oppose the war, and decided that the information contained in the Pentagon Papers should be available to the American public. He photocopied the report and in March 1971 gave the copy to The New York Times, which in return published the Pentagon Papers was the name given to a top-secret Department of Defense study of U.S. political and military involvement in Vietnam from 1945 to 1967. The Nixon administration had Ellsberg indicted on criminal charges including conspiracy, espionage and stealing government property. The trial began in 1973, but ended in a dismissal of the charges after prosecutors discovered that a secret White House team burglarized Ellsberg’s psychiatrist’s office to find information that would discredit him.

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).

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.

Here Isserman and Kazin acknowledge that the military’s hands were tied, as they were, not only by popular discontent, but because Johnson did not want to risk making the Cold War hot. Insomuch as success in the conflict was measured by enemy body count in lieu of territorial gains, there would be no direct bombing of Hanoi. As much as the consummate Texan and his inherited Alamo mythology made him believe he was fighting for freedom, there was a line he would not cross, and the North Vietnamese took advantage of this. Americans who opposed the war by 1968 did so because they believed that it could not be won. Once the Pentagon Papers were released in 1971, this purloined collection of documents related to the escalation of American involvement in Southeast Asia, spanning presidencies from Eisenhower to Johnson, further deteriorated the credibility of the American government, and helped to lead the majority of Americans to believe that the war in Vietnam was wrong

The main question that probably arose was whether the president’s executive order surpassed the First Amendment. First, the District Court for the Southern District of New York judged the Times case and decided the government had not “show[ed] justification for the enforcement of such a [prior] restraint,” for it simply deemed the publication of the Pentagon Papers detrimental to the nation. Likewise, the District Court for the D.C. and the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, the courts that judged the Washington Post case, came to the same verdict (New York Times Co. v. United States).

Government censorship continued with the passing of the Espionage Act in 1917 and the Sedition Amendment in 1918. The Espionage Act and Sedition Amendment condemned any antiwar activity or desecrating of the government, Constitution, flag, or military. The American public were almost at a point where they could not have an opinion, unless in support of the war and government. Even Wilson stated, "Woe be to the man or group of men that seeks to stand in our way." These acts of censorship gave birth to a suspicious nation.

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

1) Constitutional Question: Does the Free Speech Clause, of the First Amendment, protect Schenck from the Espionage Act of 1917?

Daniel Ellsberg took a stand against the government by releasing a copy of the Pentagon Papers to press in an effort to inform the public about the Pentagon Papers and their contents about U.S. policy in Vietnam (Indochina). (Reason.com) His friend and former colleague at RAND Corporation, Anthony Russo was his partner in revealing the Pentagon Papers. Daniel took copies of the Pentagon Papers to many different senators before going to the press. As a result of “threatening national security”, they were both charged with serious crimes like espionage. A few months later, Anthony and Daniel got off on a mistrial after it was learned that there was a break-in at his psychiatrist’s office by two government officials who worked

Censorship of war information in the United States between the mid twentieth and early twenty-first centuries has changed drastically. The role, methods and freedom of the media fundamentally changed between World War II and the first Iraq War in the early 2000’s. During World War II, citizens´ options for obtaining information, in general, and especially about the war, was extremely limited. All of these options were heavily controlled and censored accordingly at the Federal government’s discretion. In contrast to this, by the time of the first Iraq War, citizens had many more ways to get information and investigate the status of the war effort. The

out (there were more than 30 different pamphlets) to the public. These pamphlets came in many varieties of languages and explained America’s involvement with the war. As time went out, the Committee of Public Information began to push the war stronger and stronger through propaganda. This was not the approach that Creel preferred. Creel preferred the softer approach of persuasion by letting the statistics do the persuading. Soon the Committee of Public Information began to lose touch with its original goal. The Committee became submerged with patriotism with the population in its sight. As more time went on, their goal became less about persuading America and more about purifying America by any means. For many people, the war was not only over seas. Our own people were now bringing the war onto home soil. In June of 1917, the Espionage Act of June 1917 was passed. This act permitted Postmaster-General Burleson to censor United States mail at his