Research Paper on the Pentagon Papers Case

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 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

Freedom of the press was the point of the First Amendment, letting everyone have a right to their opinion that was not available before the Revolutionary War. However, this is not the first time that the government tried to counter act this right. President John Adams, signed the first Sedition Act into law which were repealed by President Jefferson in 1801. The American Government promised freedom of the press when we became a country, and I see no reason whatsoever to take it away. Absolutely, was this an unquestionable contravention of the First Amendment. Contributing classified military secrets to the enemy is one thing I can understand them trying to stop, but not taking away a right that blood was shed to achieve. Hence forth,

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

Ellsberg believed that Americans needed to know what was in the reports, and decided to make the Pentagon Papers public. Ellsberg broke several laws and gave copies to the New York Times, which began printing excerpts from the documents. The government immediately obtained a court order preventing the New York Times from printing more of the documents, arguing that publishing the material threatened national security. This was the first time in history that the government had successfully ordered a prior restraint on national security. Historically, prior restraint has been considered the most serious form of censorship.

In the case of New York Times Co. v. United States, a battle between the rights of the Executive branch and the right of free press took place. The Times published confidential documents that contained information contrary to what the government had reported to the people about the Vietnam War. These documents, now known as “the Pentagon Papers”, were deemed by the government to contain classified information. The six to three ruling handed down by the Justices sided with the Times and 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.

This paper will discuss the history of media shield laws in the U.S. and Hawaii. It will argue the pros and cons of the need and importance of such shield laws in Hawaii to help enhance the First Amendment. According to the West 's Encyclopedia of American Law (n.d.) shield laws are statues that “make communications between news reporters and informants confidential and privileged, freeing journalists of the obligation to testify about them in court.” The encyclopedia compares this to a doctor-patient, lawyer-client or priest-parishioner privilege. Where these laws are in action, journalists are free to protect their sources. If subpoenaed by a state court, journalists are free to refuse to give up their confidential sources or unpublished material. This makes it easier for journalists to report on a broad variety of topics, but these laws are also controversial because they challenge the government interests when it comes to bringing criminals to justice (Shield Laws, n.d.). Research shows that Hawaii used to have a shield law – the best in the country according to several people – but it was overturned in 2013. Today, 49 states and the District of Colombia have implemented shield laws of different variation of protection (Riker, 2015). At the same time, there does not exist any media shield laws at the federal level (Shield Laws 101, n.d.).

After reading the article of Henkin on the Iran-contra scandal, "The Constitution for its Third Century: Foreign Affairs" I do agree that Congress should have the ability to steer foreign affairs by withholding appropriations. The Constitution of the United States provides extensive powers meant to shape foreign policy via the activism of the congressional representatives. This has a great impact on foreign policy. However, the powers have changed over time.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY: The District Court rejected the government’s demand for an initial injunction, but a Circuit Court judge extended the restraining order to offer the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ample time to deliberate on the government’s case. Soon after, the Circuit Court returned the case in question to the trial court for resolve of whether any of the forthcoming publications posed danger to the security of the nation. The New York Times requested the Circuit Court’s verdict be sent straight to the Supreme Court.

The New York Times V. Sullivan case took place during the Civil right movement in the 1960s. At this time African-Americans were protesting and marching for equality in the south. During this time, several Civil rights leader reached out to the New York Times to post a full-page statement claiming "officials in the south states had used violent and illegal methods to suppress the marches" (Trager, et al, p. 164). The headline for the article was "Heed Their Rising Voices". L.B. Sullivan, police commissioner of Montgomery, Ala., felt offended about the allegations in the ad and filed a libel suit against the New York Times and the Civil rights leaders for defaming his reputation. Sullivan sought $5,000 in damages. The New York Times Co. V. Sullivan is an important case because of the access to free speech of expression, the press can cover stories about public officials and public officials that are the plaintiffs, have to prove actual malice against the defendant.

On September 17, 1787, the Constitution was signed into law and applied to the United States of America. Since its establishment, there have been numerous situations where the government has created laws that go against the Constitution. Importantly, the First Amendment in the Constitution protects freedom of speech and the freedom of the press. The First Amendment restricts the federal government on imposing any system of prior restraint. Prior restraint allows the government to censor material before its distribution or publication. When prior restraint is allowed, it in turn, limits 1st Amendment rights because it gives the government a right to suppress certain material. It is widely believed that the doctrine of prior restraint should only be used in rare events such as when it’s in regards to national security. But, how do we define national security? For years after the signing of the Constitution, the government has found loopholes to impose prior restraints on publications from the press because of national security.

Obama’s decision to restrict the freedom of press is recognized as the most aggressive measure the country had ever seen since the ex-president Nixon’s administration. With that being said it is not the first time a president uses his power to regulate or demand an order breaking an important amendment of the US

“Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.” Thomas Jefferson is stating that the press cannot be limited or there would be no freedom. “The Saturday press’, is a prime example of newspaper with a loud voice about corruption. Furthermore, Minnesota passed the Public Nuisance Law or known as the, “press gag law”. Freedom of speech is constitutionally or right to say what we please as the people of America.

Does someone campaigning for a political office tell the truth during, his/her political campaign? A politician campaigns to make the public aware of what his/her political views are on our country, and what/how they will change things in our country. Some politicians tell the public everything they want to hear, but when they get elected into office nothing changes, or they do not do, what they promised to do during their campaign. Thus, a new organization called, WikiLeaks has brought to light documents of politicians campaigning for public office. With the addition of Wikileaks into society, this had made citizens more aware of not only the politicians views, but also their lies. Although most