The Pentagon Papers & Prior Restraint
Summary: The Nixon administration attempted to censor against The New York times and Washington Post by using prior restraint to stop the publishing of a classified Defense Department report regarding the United States action in Vietnam. In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the publication, claiming that the publication of the materials would not cause immediate harm to American forces. This case brings significance to “freedom of the press” and outlines the effects of prior restraint and in constitutional value within the world of journalism. The court claimed that Nixon’s reaction was in violation of their First Amendment rights.
Background:
The action that president Nixon took came after a top-secret study conducted by the U.S. Department of Defense about the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War was leaked. Daniel Ellsberg was part of this study and leaked the study to a New York Times Reporter. The reporter, Neil Sheenan, published part of the information given to him on June 13, 1971 with a headline that read, “Vietnam Archive: Pentagon Study Traces 3 Decades of Growing U.S. Involvement.” This case became known as the “Pentagon Papers” due to this. The government feared that this information was too sensitive to be released and claimed that it was a threat to national security. It could harm relations with other nations as well. The government went on to claim that the publication violated the Espionage Act, which prohibited information relating to national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information may be used for the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation.
Significance:
The First Amendment right to “Freedom of the Press” and Prior Restraint are two important topics within this case that highlight its significance in the world of journalism. As noted on page 1961 of Communication Law: Practical Applications I the Digital Age, Prior Restraint is a form of censorship that allows the government to review the content of printed materials and prevent their publication. When the court ruled in favor of the New York Times, this established a precedent that allowed publications in the future to practice their freedom of speech without much government interference. Cases after this would benefit from this decision by having a government imposed prior restraint order be deemed unconstitutional.
Personal Viewpoint
I believe that the idea of prior restraint has its place for national security purposes but should not be used in an unconstitutional way. For this restraint to be used, the information in question must be able to present a clear and present danger to the country and not just to the government’s image. In my opinion, some government information should be public and should be reviewed with discretion. I believe that if there is sensitive information on the government’s part, then must be precautions in place to prevent the leaking of that information. If the information is to be made available or leaked to news sources, then the news sources, through their First Amendment rights, have the authority to report it. I will say that while news outlets are able to report it, they must do so with discretion. Just because you can report something does not mean that the action of reporting will not have its own consequences and repercussions.
Impact of the Press and Free Speech:
The First Amendment “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Caristi, Dom,Davie, William R. Communication Law: Practical Applications in the Digital Age (1418-1420). Taylor and Francis.
This ruling is a groundbreaking victory for the press in today’s society. The biggest enemy to the press is censorship, so having a ruling where an outlet overcame that aspect gives hope and protection to media around the country. This means that the media can run information without much government interference and serve its audience to the best of its ability. For professional communicators, I believe this case sets the example that the government cannot take away your rights to speech. It sets the expectation of what the media can do in reference to publishing information. In the digital age, this is a significant win since information now travels so fast through the internet and social platforms. Organizations can now get information out more frequently and quickly now that prior restraint cannot be a tactic to be used against them. The press now has more freedom to express information and the government cannot control that in a constitutional matter unless there are clear and present damages to the country.
Relevance in Today’s Society
In today’s society, information in journalism can always run the risk of causing damages. This can happen even if the information being reported is true. There is information that may have a time and place for reporting. It is important to understand the state of the world when sharing information to make the most accurate judgment on whether information should be shared or not. This is what journalists will face now that prior restraint cannot limit the press as much. With that being said, in today’s world of communications, this case serves a good example that while the press has clear freedoms of reporting information, it is important to understand the causes and effects of publishing information. As a news outlet in today’s society, you have the freedom to publish information that does not present a danger to the country. While that may be true, it is important to understand what sharing information can do. For example, amid racial tensions in present-day America, news stations reported one of many killings of a black man at the hand of a police officer. This information is true and cannot be censored by the government. This is great news for the media industry in terms of running a story. The issue now becomes deciding whether this information had a negative impact on society or not. The “affect” of this news must now be in question. From information such as this, it can be concluded that riots and protests will ensue. It can also be concluded that people can be harmed by this information where parties involved could be liable to persecution and harassment. In today’s society, while the media is free to report information, it must also do so with discretion of ethics so that ideas such as “prior restraint” cannot be brought against them.
References:
1. Caristi, Dom,Davie, William R. Communication Law: Practical Applications in the Digital Age. Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.
2. http://landmarkcases.c-span.org/Case/25/New-York-Times-v-United-States
3. https://www.thefire.org/first-amendment-library/decision/new-york-times-co-v-united-states
4. https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1009/prior-restraint
5. https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/505/new-york-times-co-v-united-states