N. Y Times Case Analysis

“… to gather news it is often necessary to agree either not to identify the source of information published or to publish only part of the facts revealed, or both; that if the reporter is nevertheless forced to reveal these confidences to a grand jury, the source so identified and other confidential sources of other reporters will be measurably deterred from furnishing publishable information, all to the detriment of the free flow of information, protected by the first amendment.” (3)

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.

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

The First Amendment did not protect speech was given strength orders but however it was not following directions, since, "when a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their stream of language production will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right." In other words, the court held, the circumstances of wartime permit greater restrictions on free speech than would be allowable during peacetime.

The issue here becomes whether the court’s decision was the right one or if they could have come up with a different decision had the case been studied from different perspectives making the decision wrong. Both arguments (for and against the Court’s decision) are discussed below, but I personally believe that court’s decision was the only right one to make.

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).

The New York Times declines and the Justice Department files a demand for an injunction in a federal district court in New York. Judge Gurfein grants a temporary restraining order halting more installments in the Pentagon Papers series and they schedule another hearing for the 17th but is rescheduled for the 18th. On June 18, 1971, a hearing is held to decide if the restraining order on the The New York Times should be lifted. It is later lifted but the order is left to give time for the government to appeal. Ten days later on June 28, 1971, Ellsberg surrenders to arrest at the federal courthouse in Boston. The court case between The New York Times and the United States goes to the U.S. Supreme Court. On June 30, 1971, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the government had failed to prove harm to national security, and that publication of the papers was justified under the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of the press. (History.com) A court indicted Ellsberg and Russo on 15 counts of serious crimes. In April of 1973 the court learns that two individuals Howard E. Hunt (a government official) and G. Gordon Liddy (a lawyer) burglarized the office of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist on September 3, 1971 in an effort to secure information about Ellsberg’s mental health damaging to Ellsberg's defense. This

This is an individual assignment to be completed before class. Must be submitted into the text box below. The purpose of this assignment is to help you prepare for the activity that will take place in class by asking you to think critically about the Karen Leary Case.

1.3. In order to estimate the peso discount rate, assume that the International Fisher Effect (IFE) holds. Groupe Ariel's Euro hurdle rate for a project of this type was 8%. Assume that inflation rates are expected to be 7% in Mexico and 3% in France.

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.

All three sources took either a neutral, minor, or highly biased position where the CBS article, the “Our Families Are Under Attack, So We Rise Up” article, and the “No Release for State Dreamer” article. While it is the essential job for the media to stay neutral, these mass media outlets are the ones that harbor the responsibility for perpetuation of misinformation due to their chosen pieces of research and evidence that they decide to integrate into their articles for all of the media to

The case has already been solved and the Rolling Stone never received any legal repercussion for using the links which goes to show what side was given more value. It also says a lot about the philosophical framework that was used to solve the case. Like Lethal mentioned in his Harvard Law Review, utilitarianism was an idea that he linked to copyright laws and it is also a philosophical framework that can be used to explain why the Rolling Stone were allowed to use the links. Utilitarianism is a philosophy that focused on the end result of an action, i.e. the consequences. It bases its ethical theory on maximizing the utility and making sure something is the most useful for the largest amount of people, or by something that has the greater amount of importance.

3). It was established that prior restraints are suspect under the First Amendment. Gurfein changed his decision after a few hours of hearings. He removed the restraining order the next day, saying “The First Amendment prohibits censorship by the government in all but the most exceptional cases.” (Liptak, par.15). In return, the government appealed his decision. During this whole process, The Washington Post started publishing the article and was also sued. Appeals courts in Washington allowed publication and New York prohibited it. The lawyers for The New York Times contacted Solicitor General Erwin Griswold to appeal to the Supreme Court. They provided a twenty-page

In the past, the booming economy had allowed for year to year increase in their sales because people had larger discretionary incomes. But due to the recession, smaller independent retailers had to markdown their items in order to stay in business because designer outlet stores are getting more traffic; so will Harry Rosen follow in suit? Or in order to maintain the integrity of the quality products they offer, will they continue their higher pricing and settle for a lower market share?

The Supreme Court case was argued on June 26, 1971 and decided on June 30, 1971. It affirmed the verdicts of the District Court for the Southern District of New York & the District Court for D.C. and the Court of Appeals for the D.C. (New York Times Co. v. United States).