New York Times Co. v. United States | BRI’s Homework Help Series

0:00 How should the government balance national security and the right to a free press? By 1967, the US. Had been involved in the Vietnam war for more than a decade. It began to study its involvement in order to review its strategy. Area of defense. Robert McNamara commissioned the report of the Office of the Secretary of Defense Vietnam Task Force, or,

0:23 as it would soon be informally known, the Pentagon Papers. In 1971, a member of this task force illegally released sections of the report to major newspapers. At a time when many Americans were bitterly opposed to the war, this raised important constitutional question does the First Amendment to the Constitution protect

0:43 the publication of classified documents related to national security? This is the case of New York Times Company v. The United States. Daniel Ellsberg was a strategic analyst who worked for the Rand Corporation,

1:04 a think tank that offered research and analysis to the United States military. Ellsberg worked on the Pentagon Papers, during which time he grew disillusioned with US. Policy in the war. Believing that the American people had been deceived about the scope of the Vietnam War, Ellsberg made illegal photocopies of the report in 1969 with the intent to release some of the information.

1:27 In 1971, he approached New York Times reporter Neil Sheehan and allowed him to review portions of it in his apartment, but not to copy it. Sheehan copied it anyway and secretly worked with his editors to prepare the report for publication. On June 13, 1971, the New York Times began publishing the confidential report.

1:48 Shortly thereafter, the Washington Post would follow suit as Ellsberg had released photocopies to them as well. The United States Justice Department immediately moved to block both newspapers from publishing any further sections of the report. The power of the government to prevent the publication of information is called prior restraint. The Justice Department argued that publishing the report would cause

2:10 immense harm to the defense and security of the United States. Historically, the courts deemed prior restraint a violation of the First Amendment because it stopped the free press. The court determined that the threat to national security was too great to allow the continued release of the Vietnam study until it could be reviewed in-depth. At the same time, a different court of appeals ruled

2:32 that the Department of Justice’s appeal for prior restraint against the Washington Post for publishing the same papers was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court would now need to break the tie in the case of New York Times Company v. US. Would it uphold the prior restraint order, or would it deem a violation of the first amendment? The court’s verdict came by way

2:52 of a briefly written six to three per curiam decision. In the end, the court ruled in favor of the New York Times and Washington Post. In his opinion concurring with the decision, Justice Hugo Black stated I believe that every moment continuance of the injunctions against these newspapers amounts to a flagrant indefensible and continuing violation of the First Amendment.

3:15 In the First Amendment, the Founding Fathers. Gave the free press the protection it. Must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. In a separate concurring opinion, justice William Douglas emphasized the importance of free expression of ideas in the United States, writing, secrecy in government is fundamentally anti-democratic perpetuating bureaucratic error. Open debate

3:37 and discussion of public issues are vital to our national health. The dissenting justices, however, were not convinced. They believed that the Court has acted too quickly in making its ruling without properly considering the facts, and that without proper knowledge, the judiciary should yield to the Executive and its greater knowledge of national security.

3:58 Justice John Marshall Harlan accused the majority of being almost irresponsibly feverish by making a ruling. Less than a week after the case. Was argued before the Supreme Court. Justice Harry Blackmun wrote a scathing dissent in which he stated. If with the Court’s action today. These newspapers proceed to publish the critical documents and their results they’re from prolongation of the war

4:20 and further delay in the freeing of the United States prisoners, then the nation’s people will know where the responsibility for these sad consequences rests. The important constitutional questions raised in this case regarding freedom of the press and national security continue to be discussed in the modern day in a situation remarkably similar to that of Daniel Ellsberg.

4:41 Edward Snowden, a contractor who works for the National Security Agency, revealed thousands of classified documents to journalists in 2013 because. He believed his work for government violated the privacy of Americans. With the rise of social media and the ever increasing ease in which people can obtain information, these issues will surely arise again.

5:03 How will the Court balance questions of national security and the right to a free press in the future? This was the case of New York Times Company v. United States. What you’re watching, Ben? okay, so there’s this cool YouTube channel called Billabrace Institute youOshould actually like and subscribe. Oh yeah, I’ve heard of it.

5:23 We’re actually in it right now. Oh right. Well, you should like and subscribe too.