1st Amendment Case Study
Free Speech and The First Amendment
Comm 3300
Brief #3
Case: The case was New York Times Co v. United States at was decided on June 30, 1971.
Brief description of the facts of the case: in 1971 the U.S. had been at war with North Vietnam for six years in which many American soldiers had lost their lives in battle and the Administration was currently facing immense dissent from a large portion of the American people. The Nixon Administration tried to prevent the New York Times and Washington Post from publishing materials that belonged to a classified Defense Department study after Daniel Ellsberg copied more than 7000 pages of classified documents that regarded the history of U.S. activities in Vietnam. Ellsberg believed the American people …show more content…
needed to know what was reported in these documents. In order to make this information public he had to break several laws which included giving copies of these documents to the New York Times and to the Washington Post. Nixon claimed executive authority forcing the New York Tines to suspend publication of the classified information.
The first article appeared in the the New York Times on June 13, 1971. The next week the newspaper company received on order from a Court District Judge to cease further publication on grounds that the government claimed such publications would result in injury to the defense interests of the U.S. From a constitutional point of view, the government was articulating it’s intent to enforce prior restraint on the newspaper regarding publishing of the study 's findings made by the government. The President argued that prior restraint was necessary for this situation in order to protect national security. The government sought a restraining order that would barring the New York Times from publishing other articles that contained information discovered in the Pentagon Papers. This case was decided together with United States v. Washington Post Co. Justice Black and Douglas argued that the vague term of “security” should not be used to “abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment.” Justice Brennan also claimed that since the publication wouldn’t result in an inevitable, direct, and immediate event imperiling American forces’ safety that prior …show more content…
restraint was unjustified. Thus making the use of prior restraint unconstitutional. Other arguments were also given in support of denying prior restraint. Giving the President “inherent power” over halting publications by resorting to courts would go against the First Amendment. Since there is no statue preventing the publication by the press of the material that the New York Times and the Washington Post wanted to publish, the First Amendment leaves no room for governmental restraint of the press. All of the justices agreed that only a free and unrestrained press can effectively reveal deception within our government.
Counterclaim: Chief Justice Warren E.
Burger stated a dissenting argument which stated that the the freedom of the press collides with another imperative — the effective functioning of a “modern complex government.” He also argued that there should be an in-depth study of the effects of such actions. He went on to say that in the hast of proceedings, and the size of documents, the Court was not able to obtain an adequate amount of information to make an informed decision on this case. He also argued that the New York Times should have taken the initiative to discuss repercussion to society with the government before published the material. Yet he did not make the argument that the government had met the heavy burden of proof standard. His main point was that the Court’s decision should not have been made so quickly. Justice Harry A. Blackmun and Justice John M. Harlan also joined the the Chief Justice in this argument stating the faults of the proceedings and the the need for more attention toward national security as well as Executive
rights.
Main Question before the Court: The Supreme Court had to decide if the actions taken by the Nixon Administration to prevent the publication of what they claimed was “classified information” violated the First Amendment. The question before the court was was if the constitutional freedom of the press that is guaranteed by the First Amendment was allowed to be undermined by a claimed need to maintain secrecy of information made by the executive branch of the U.S. government. This case was concerned with the rights of speech, press, and assembly that are guaranteed by the First Amendment.
Case Decision: The Supreme Court in a six to three decision decided to agree with the two lower courts that had agreed that government did in fact not meet the “heavy burden” of demonstrating a justification for using prior restraint in this case. The court issued a per curium opinion which stated that the court was in accord with the lower courts decisions to reject the injunction request that was made by the government. Varying degrees of support for the First Amendment were included in the Justice’s opinions. None of the Justices fully supported the government’s case for using prior restraint as a means to insure national security.
Groups who supported: Of course the Times and the Washington Post supported their right to freedom of press and since they did not illegally obtain those documents they did not feel as though they were at fault for the classified information being released. Alexander Bickel claimed that the separation of powers barred the court from issuing a restraining order due to their being no statue authorizing it.
Groups who opposed: Chief of the Civil Division of the United States Attorneys Office claimed that serious injuries were being made on U.S. foreign relations which benefited other nations opposed to the U.S. government. Secretary of State William P. Rogers was also concerned about the publication alleging unrepairable injuries if the publication of these documents were not stopped.
Significance of ruling: Although there was no clear, exclusive verdict that appeared from this case, the significance of this case and the words spoken by the Justices are still important statements made in relevance to exceptions of the First Amendment. This landmark case has been cited citied several times in other Supreme Court cases as well. The court held that in this case the government didn’t meet the requisite burden of proof and didn’t overcome the heavy presumption against prior restraint of the press. This case remains as one of the most important freedom of the press cases in American history. This case upheld the First Amendment and allowed the press to function as the founding fathers intended it to. With out the protection of these rights the press could not work to expose the faults of the government and inform the people of the truth. The case makes it very difficult for the government to exercise any power over the press when publishing material that might make people question their government. The government must be able to prove that the publication would result in inevitable, direct, and immediate harm of American forces in order for prior restraint to be justified.
Citations and Sources:
"Landmark Supreme Court Cases“ New York Times v. The United States (1971)." Bill of Rights Institute Landmark Supreme Court Cases New York Times v The United States 1971 Comments. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Oct. 2014. <http://billofrightsinstitute.org/resources/educator-resources/lessons-plans/landmark-cases-and-the-constitution/new-york-times-v-the-united-states-1971/>.
"NEW YORK TIMES v. UNITED STATES." New York Times v. United States. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Oct. 2014. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1970/1970_1873#mla>.
"New York Times Co. v. United States [The Pentagon Papers Case] | Casebriefs." Casebriefs. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Oct. 2014. <http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/constitutional-law/constitutional-law-keyed-to-sullivan/freedom-of-speech-how-government-restricts-speech-modes-of-abridgment-and-standards-of-review/new-york-times-co-v-united-states-the-pentagon-papers-case/>.
Comm 3300
Brief #3
Case: The case was New York Times Co v. United States at was decided on June 30, 1971.
Brief description of the facts of the case: in 1971 the U.S. had been at war with North Vietnam for six years in which many American soldiers had lost their lives in battle and the Administration was currently facing immense dissent from a large portion of the American people. The Nixon Administration tried to prevent the New York Times and Washington Post from publishing materials that belonged to a classified Defense Department study after Daniel Ellsberg copied more than 7000 pages of classified documents that regarded the history of U.S. activities in Vietnam. Ellsberg believed the American people …show more content…
needed to know what was reported in these documents. In order to make this information public he had to break several laws which included giving copies of these documents to the New York Times and to the Washington Post. Nixon claimed executive authority forcing the New York Tines to suspend publication of the classified information.
The first article appeared in the the New York Times on June 13, 1971. The next week the newspaper company received on order from a Court District Judge to cease further publication on grounds that the government claimed such publications would result in injury to the defense interests of the U.S. From a constitutional point of view, the government was articulating it’s intent to enforce prior restraint on the newspaper regarding publishing of the study 's findings made by the government. The President argued that prior restraint was necessary for this situation in order to protect national security. The government sought a restraining order that would barring the New York Times from publishing other articles that contained information discovered in the Pentagon Papers. This case was decided together with United States v. Washington Post Co. Justice Black and Douglas argued that the vague term of “security” should not be used to “abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment.” Justice Brennan also claimed that since the publication wouldn’t result in an inevitable, direct, and immediate event imperiling American forces’ safety that prior …show more content…
restraint was unjustified. Thus making the use of prior restraint unconstitutional. Other arguments were also given in support of denying prior restraint. Giving the President “inherent power” over halting publications by resorting to courts would go against the First Amendment. Since there is no statue preventing the publication by the press of the material that the New York Times and the Washington Post wanted to publish, the First Amendment leaves no room for governmental restraint of the press. All of the justices agreed that only a free and unrestrained press can effectively reveal deception within our government.
Counterclaim: Chief Justice Warren E.
Burger stated a dissenting argument which stated that the the freedom of the press collides with another imperative — the effective functioning of a “modern complex government.” He also argued that there should be an in-depth study of the effects of such actions. He went on to say that in the hast of proceedings, and the size of documents, the Court was not able to obtain an adequate amount of information to make an informed decision on this case. He also argued that the New York Times should have taken the initiative to discuss repercussion to society with the government before published the material. Yet he did not make the argument that the government had met the heavy burden of proof standard. His main point was that the Court’s decision should not have been made so quickly. Justice Harry A. Blackmun and Justice John M. Harlan also joined the the Chief Justice in this argument stating the faults of the proceedings and the the need for more attention toward national security as well as Executive
rights.
Main Question before the Court: The Supreme Court had to decide if the actions taken by the Nixon Administration to prevent the publication of what they claimed was “classified information” violated the First Amendment. The question before the court was was if the constitutional freedom of the press that is guaranteed by the First Amendment was allowed to be undermined by a claimed need to maintain secrecy of information made by the executive branch of the U.S. government. This case was concerned with the rights of speech, press, and assembly that are guaranteed by the First Amendment.
Case Decision: The Supreme Court in a six to three decision decided to agree with the two lower courts that had agreed that government did in fact not meet the “heavy burden” of demonstrating a justification for using prior restraint in this case. The court issued a per curium opinion which stated that the court was in accord with the lower courts decisions to reject the injunction request that was made by the government. Varying degrees of support for the First Amendment were included in the Justice’s opinions. None of the Justices fully supported the government’s case for using prior restraint as a means to insure national security.
Groups who supported: Of course the Times and the Washington Post supported their right to freedom of press and since they did not illegally obtain those documents they did not feel as though they were at fault for the classified information being released. Alexander Bickel claimed that the separation of powers barred the court from issuing a restraining order due to their being no statue authorizing it.
Groups who opposed: Chief of the Civil Division of the United States Attorneys Office claimed that serious injuries were being made on U.S. foreign relations which benefited other nations opposed to the U.S. government. Secretary of State William P. Rogers was also concerned about the publication alleging unrepairable injuries if the publication of these documents were not stopped.
Significance of ruling: Although there was no clear, exclusive verdict that appeared from this case, the significance of this case and the words spoken by the Justices are still important statements made in relevance to exceptions of the First Amendment. This landmark case has been cited citied several times in other Supreme Court cases as well. The court held that in this case the government didn’t meet the requisite burden of proof and didn’t overcome the heavy presumption against prior restraint of the press. This case remains as one of the most important freedom of the press cases in American history. This case upheld the First Amendment and allowed the press to function as the founding fathers intended it to. With out the protection of these rights the press could not work to expose the faults of the government and inform the people of the truth. The case makes it very difficult for the government to exercise any power over the press when publishing material that might make people question their government. The government must be able to prove that the publication would result in inevitable, direct, and immediate harm of American forces in order for prior restraint to be justified.
Citations and Sources:
"Landmark Supreme Court Cases“ New York Times v. The United States (1971)." Bill of Rights Institute Landmark Supreme Court Cases New York Times v The United States 1971 Comments. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Oct. 2014. <http://billofrightsinstitute.org/resources/educator-resources/lessons-plans/landmark-cases-and-the-constitution/new-york-times-v-the-united-states-1971/>.
"NEW YORK TIMES v. UNITED STATES." New York Times v. United States. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Oct. 2014. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1970/1970_1873#mla>.
"New York Times Co. v. United States [The Pentagon Papers Case] | Casebriefs." Casebriefs. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Oct. 2014. <http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/constitutional-law/constitutional-law-keyed-to-sullivan/freedom-of-speech-how-government-restricts-speech-modes-of-abridgment-and-standards-of-review/new-york-times-co-v-united-states-the-pentagon-papers-case/>.