United States Vs New York Times Case Study

For almost 200 years the American public viewed their government and its chief executive with virtual reverence. Presidents like George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy were the embodiment of every principle and value set forth in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The events that occurred in Vietnam coupled with the Watergate scandal shocked the nation and irreparably damaged the publics’ view of politics and government activities. The release of the Pentagon papers

Moreover, this paper hopes to justify that the Watergate break in was directly caused by the pressure on Nixon from his advisers in relation to the Pentagon papers and the papers' appearance to the citizens. In addition, this essay hopes to prove that Nixon unknowingly sabotaged his own presidency in response to New York Times's publication and court case, Daniel Ellsberg's trial, and Watergate. Also, this Extended Essay hopes to demonstrate how the Pentagon Papers established a credibility gap between the citizens and the presidency. Furthermore, the credibility gap is a different perception of events between the government and its citizens. Thus meaning that when any national crisis arose it could significantly affect a president's approval ratings and destroy any relationship forming with in the public. Finally, the Pentagon Papers established a credibility gap in the later years of Nixon's presidency specifically with the Watergate break in and his claims of innocence. This research question is worthy of investigation because the effects of the Pentagon Papers are still felt in the United States with the recent events of Edward Snowden, WikiLeaks, and the revelation of the NSA spying on American citizens. That is concurrent to the feelings of the citizens in the 1970s with the government lying to its own

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.

There are many causes of self-betrayal in today's society. Accordingly, Self-Betrayal comes from an individual who fails to recognize a fault within themselves, then obtains a sudden realization of said fault which affects the person in a negative manner. Before one can change others, one must change themselves. These causes of self-betrayal are seen in the article Great Betrayals by The New York Times. “Discoveries of such secrets typically bring on tumultuous crises. Ironically, however, in my clinical experience, it is often the person who lied or cheated who has the easier time.” ( Fels. A Great Betrayals). Indeed, it is true that in some circumstances the act of betraying one's self can lead to a positive outcome. With this acknowledgment

In “How to be a ‘Woman Programmer,’” first published in The New York Times, Ellen Ullman argues that there is great prejudice against women in the workplace. Specifically, Ullman thinks that such prejudice exists in the deeper parts of the more technical fields such as computer programming. While encouraging women to avoid confronting men who show their prejudice against them, Ullman nevertheless points out the idea that women should stick to their passion for their work. For Ullman, it is the next best thing that women can do, apart from being a practical solution. However, I think that women should not be afraid to call their male coworkers out whenever women experience sexual prejudice in the workplace regardless of their position. Today, there are laws that equip women with the power to bring erring male coworkers to justice. After all, if the point is to make the genders equal, women should learn to assert their rights.

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).

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

In the case that was know as The Pentagon Papers Case. The plaintiff; USA argued that “prior restraint was necessary to protect national security.” The defendant; NYT said that it wouldn’t hurt the people to know what was going on in a war that their own country was fighting in. The Pentagon Papers was a secret Department of Defense study of U.S. political and military involvement in Vietnam from 1945-1967. On June 30, 1971 the supreme court came to their decision. They voted 6 to 3 in favor of the New York Times. In writing for the

The Special Investigations Unit, better known as the "plumbers unit," was created as a result of the Pentagon Papers being leaked to the New York Times in June of 1971. The Pentagon Papers were secret defense department documents on the American involvement in the Vietnam War. They revealed a pattern of government deception related to Vietnam. The Papers were leaked to the New York Times by Dr. Daniel Ellsberg, who worked on the staff of the National Security Adviser, Henry Kissinger. The Nixon administration responded by stopping publication of the papers and charging Ellsberg with espionage.

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

Media is everywhere, but determining what an accurate picture of reality is can be difficult. With all of the mainstream corporations out there, giving the people the full truth is not as important as protecting their economic interest. End The Lie leaves you with unanswered questions, while questioning the information given. However, The New York Times’ perspective of the Russian proposal to put Syria’s chemical weapons under international control goes more in depth and is more reliable than the alternative source End The Lie.

The Supreme Court in New York Times Co. v. United States was a very controversial case and remains to this day one that is accompanied by a range of different opinions. The case pertains to the Vietnam War, government secrecy, and the right to a free press. President Nixon believed he was right in attempting to suppress the rights of the first amendment on the New York Times, this was a completely unjust move by President Nixon. Ultimately, the court ended up ruling in the New York Times favor which was the proper and correct thing to do.

The concept that marriage can occur, endure, and succeed without the factor of love seems to be common in many other places in the world. “Who Needs Love! In Japan, Many Couples Don’t,” by Nicholas D. Kristof published in the New York Times in 1996 explores the aspects and success of loveless marriage in Japan beginning with Yuri Uemura of Omiya, Japan.

The New York Times article “When ultra- religious Hasidic women choose to lead secular lives, their freedom comes at a price” is an example of anomic suicide. Anomie is a concept developed by the sociologist Emile Durkheim to describe a lack on social norm and values or unclear norms. The absence of norms makes people feel unguided in the choices they have to make. Durkheim linked anomic suicide to isolation and lack of social regulations. This lack of social regulations and norms lead to a sense of emptiness and despair. Those ideas lead to situation where individuals feel disconnected from society.