New York Times Co. versus United States: The Security of Secrets

The government can not censor the press, even if what is published is against the government. The free press helps to protect citizens’ rights and hold the government in check. Also in accordance to the First Amendment, people have the right to join any organization of their choosing and come together as a group, peaceably. The last right that the public has is the right to present the government with petitions or letters that tell of their unhappiness and complaints against the government. This is a right that our founding fathers did not have back in England. When they declared independence from the King, they laid out all of their grievances for the world to see. In contrast, our citizens today do no have to wait for a historical event to vent their frustrations.

The First Amendment one that is watered down, serves as example of the freedom we as Americans have. It is best known as the amendment that lets us say what we want when we want. There is more to it that gets overlooked. It blocks government from establishing a theocracy, grants the people the right to peacefully assemble and protest the government for a redress of grievances. Our press is independent and is given freedom to publish at will. Our freedoms embolden us to speak out and organize for progress and against society's wrongs. Sometimes groups will organize to speak out but will sink to extreme measures as a means of expression. The first amendment has seen challenges in recent months. “Donald Trump referred to the press, and I'm quoting his exact words, as "dishonest, disgusting, and scum."Just ten days ago, you might have heard in a press conference, President Donald Trump said that the "press is out of control."(Chemerinsky, 553). To clashes between different ideologies on college campuses with some initiating riots. The first amendment grants many freedoms, however it does not grant protection from consequence.

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

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

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).

During this year Thomas Jefferson and James Madison had decided to bring forth resolutions. Arguing that the alien and sedition acts violated the constitution’s first amendment and was therefore unconstitutional and unlawful. The Alien and Sedition acts had been passed with the sight of a war with the French approaching. It was thought that this act that would strictly constrict any punitive harmful speech towards the government and that it would further prevent problems, thus providing internal security. It was by limiting the right of the press to the first amendment that this instantly angered some. The Alien and Sedition acts did however heavily target the press. Also limiting what they could report impairing thus becoming unconstitutional again for impairing their freedom of speech. It was during this time that Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison whom had played a major role in drafting the constitution, came forward with their opinions about the Alien and Sedition acts. James Madison had his draft presented to the Virginia legislature, whereas Thomas Jefferson had his draft presented to Kentucky

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 authors stated that Wilson and the government violated the Constitution by issuing the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918 which would outlaw citizens from making negative statements towards the war effort (Woods and Gutzman, 2008, p. 11). It seems as if with these two acts freedom of speech is not free. Woods and Gutzman explained in detail how these acts worked and how the courts interpreted them to fit the personal needs of the government (Woods and Gutzman, 2008, p. 13). Giving these facts the reader can only conclude that history shows in this case that the government was not following even one of the most fundamental rights the Constitution

the liberty of the press”, “the proposed constitution appears to [violate] the first principles that

The case Near v. Minnesota rejects the concept that the President has inherent powers to go into court and obtain an injunction to protect the national interest. In the case, the final decision was to allow the press to print malicious, scandalous, and defamatory articles, the government could not censor any of the information published. In result, government officials have less control over the articles printed by the press. The government cannot censor newspapers for information that is only a public nuisance. From this case, it was determined more evidence needed to be shown to allow for censorship. The First Amendment protects the freedom of the press, and limits the restrictions that the government can place on the press.

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

The founders of the United States government tried to protect our liberty by assuring a free press, to gather and publish information without being under control or power of another, in the First Amendment to the Constitution. We are not very protected by this guarantee, so we concern ourselves on account of special interest groups that are fighting to change the freedom of expression, the right to freely represent individual thoughts, feeling and views, in order to protect their families as well as others. These groups, religious or otherwise, believe that publishing unorthodox material is an abuse of free expression under the First Amendment. As we know, the Supreme Court plays an important role in the subject of free speech and

First of all, this is the definition of freedom of the press from lawbrain.com. Freedom of the press guarantees the rights, “to gather, publish, and distribute information and ideas without government restriction or restraint”. Also it is