Media Final Essay

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, lawful case in which, on March 9, 1964, the U.S. Supreme Court governed consistently (9–0) that, for a slander suit to be effective, the complainant must demonstrate that the guilty proclamation was made with " 'genuine perniciousness', with learning that it was false or with neglectful failure of whether it was the truth or not." Specifically, the case included a notice that showed up in The New York Times in March 1960 that sketched out how African Americans had been persecuted and that requested that perusers contribute cash to the battle to end racial isolation in the South.

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 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).

John Peter Zenger’s case was not only significant to to the journalists, but it was also very significant to the rest of the colonists in the American colonists. John Peter Zenger’s case sparked a rebellion into the colonists, which eventually led to them wanting their freedom and fighting for it against Britain in the American Revolution (Linder 2). John Peter Zenger claimed that his writing was, in fact, accurate. Although, the jury could still convict Zenger even if it was true or not, the judge convinced the jury not to convict on the grounds of publication alone (Kennedy 1). When the court decided to accept the truth as the truth, it laid the work for the future which eventually was put into the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution (John 1). “His trial establishes the principle that truth is a defense to libel and that a jury may determine whether a publication is defamatory or seditious,” (First

(pg. 200) Jefferson once said,“Where the press is free and every man able to read, all is safe.” (2.) Once you try to restrict people in what they say, you won’t be able to restrict everybody because there are too many people. Even when people are in their home, you won’t be able to control them. If you cannot control everyone, there is no point of having the rule.

The First Amendment has its flaws; it does not protect against all forms speech and articles with negative intent. In each of the cases, newspaper organizations were tried for using their freedom of press. Time, place and manner regulation treats all acts of speech the same. Under this guideline, people may socialize freely in public, but may not talk at a time or place that would cause major traffic blockage, because it’s affecting the rights of other individuals. The Court developed the time, place, and manner regulation to decide if federal jurisdictions of free speech were legal under the Constitution. In this rule, limitations on free speech are solely constitutional if the speech’s content is neutral. The right’s granted under the First

The Sedition Act of 1918, enacted during World War I, made it illegal to “willfully utter, print, write or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States.” While the Sedition Act was passed as a cautionary measure to keep peace within the country in the midst of a red scare, the government overstepped a boundary by censoring the conversation on war. During wartime, vulnerable Americans deserve their first amendment rights more than ever in order to protect themselves. By restricting the media, the government suppressed the spread of ideas, hampered the voice of the citizens, and enforced paranoia of foreigners both during and immediately after World War I.

In 1969 Daniel Ellsberg made 7000 photocopies of classified information that he had access to. He then gave these copies to The New York TImes, and on June 13th 1971 the New York Times began printing. After these documents were printed out the government quickly jumped to action by getting a court order which prevented them from printing any more copies.This case came to be known as The New York TImes v. The United States, this case was argued on June 26th, 1971 and decided four days later. There was much debate on whether the government's response was constitutional or not, but eventually the case ended with a decision. This decision was a six to three vote, with The New York Times winning the case. The reason this case went to the supreme court was because of the fact that the government had ignored the first amendment by getting a court order that stated that the New York TImes could not print the Pentagon Papers as they came to be known. The first amendment states that the government cannot not form any laws against many personal freedoms“or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” by any standards the United States preventing a newspaper company from printing

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

In the book Freedom for the Thought that we Hate, author Anthony Lewis takes a simply phrased law, the First Amendment and shows how complex freedom of speech really is once put into the real world of freedom, as we know it. He shows through his rejections of absolutism, strong support towards freedom restriction, and objective analysis of Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, that the United States press is unlike any other in the world.

In the Supreme Court case of the New York Times Co. vs. United States there is a power struggle. This struggle includes the entities of the individual freedoms against the interests of federal government. It is well known that the first amendment protects the freedom of speech, but to what extent does this freedom exist. There have been instances in which speech has been limited; Schenck vs. United States(1919) was the landmark case which instituted such limitations due to circumstances of “clear and present danger”. Many have noted that the press serves as an overseer which both apprehends and guides national agenda. However, if the federal government possessed the ability to censor the press would the government restrain itself? In the

Sullivan sued the New York Times and won in the state of Alabama. However the case was taken to the Supreme Court, where they ruled in favour of the New York Times. The newspaper was protected under the amendment and the court advised that Sullivan would have had to of proved what was said against him that was misrepresenting. Nonetheless, it was said that most of the things said about the Police department was true. (www.uscourts.gov). Similarly, after the New York Times printed excerpts from seven thousand pages of classified documents called “Pentagon Papers” in 1971. These documents were over the United States involvement in the Vietnam War. Once again, the newspaper was protected by its amendments and the court ruled in their favour. The court said that “Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government” meaning that the press has the right to inform the people of information such as these “Pentagon Papers”. (www.billofrightsinstitute.org) In the end, the highest level of government lost to a newspaper because of the freedom of speech and press, which is remarkable and very rare with many governments. These cases prove that with the United States System, our rights can and will be protected even when going up against the government. However, if your intentions are clear and threaten danger you can be convicted. There has also been Acts like the Sedation Act that violated Americans rights stating that the people couldn’t publically oppose the government. Thankfully, this act was repealed with many others after the war ended.

Free speech allows the people to hold their government accountable via the free press. A condition of a good government is “freedom of information, and what has been called the right to know” (Garton Ash 78), which is the responsibility of a free press to provide to the people, especially when the government is not being transparent on its own. Without a press that is free to report on public officials’ and the government’s activity, both are able to go unchecked, at the expense of the people they are supposed to serve. In addition to this, freedom to expose public figures’ activities must be protected from frivolous accusations of libel because the ability to have a journalist accused of libel for revealing the truth would “[threaten] the informing purpose of the First Amendment” (Lewis 51). The United States embraced this idea when the Supreme Court case New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) decision the court changed the standards that constitute libel to the statement must be false, as well as published both knowingly and recklessly. This shifted the burden of proof from the accused to the accuser.

Freedom of the press is considered to be the most important component to a strong, fair, and healthy democracy. This ideal is so valued that it is within the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States’ Bill of Rights. Today still, a free press is often used as a measurement of the freedom and democratic strength of a state, and is considered to be a guardian of the people against democratic erosion or executive aggrandizement. Freedom of the press, however, is not unproblematic. It can seem at many times that state intervention within or restriction of the press, can solve some of the issues of a free press, but neither state control, nor an entirely unconstrained press is perfect for democracy, or protection against the erosion of democracy. While a free press does not guarantee the survival of a democracy, and the degree of freedom may need to be slightly limited, it is without question, that a freer press is more likely to ensure the survival of democracy, than a press that is controlled, or one that is experiences extreme constraints from the government.

This freedom of the press given to citizens was something that the framers took serious and gave great importance to. Since this freedom lets the citizens of America know what goes on behind the scene in the governments offices. This information is shared with the public making it so that the government doesn't keep important information from its citizens which would prevent its citizens from speaking out in the wrongdoing they see led by the government. Thereby not letting the government sly by and take actions that would deem to be unfair for its people and the rights of its country. This was the kind of tyranny the framers were concerned about, and the more a person is concerned about tyranny the freer you want freedom of speech and press to be.