New+York+Times+v.+U.S.

New York Times Co. v. U.S.
=**Case Title and Date of Hearing** = This case was called New York Times Co. v. United States. It can also be referred to as the //Pentagon Papers// case. The hearing for this trial occurred on June 25th, 1971. The government first sued The New York Times on June 15th, 1971 after the New York Times had been publishing information regarding Pentagon Papers between June 12-14th of that same year. The consensus was reached on June 30th, 1971, five days after the hearing. **Any time you use the newspaper title, it should be //italicized// or __underlined__.** =**Basic Summary** = Basically, this court case was all about government censorship of the press in the United States of America. In June of 1971, the US government wanted to censor the information about the Vietnam War form papers from the Pentagon that was being published in the New York Times and Washington Post. Thes "//Pentagon// //Papers"// were said to have contained documents relating to a government study on the Vietnam War, done so we could learn why we failed in Vietnam. This led to a large case about how far the government can go with censorship without violating “freedom of the press,” granted to Americans in the First Amendment. Warren E. Burger was the Chief Justice of this case, and was one of the three members of the court that voted against the New York Times. In the end, the Supreme Court came to a decision that if the federal government were to censor the press, it would have to be because of the presence of publications that would place the country in grave danger, but no prior restriction can be set.
 * - Bradley S, LeDea B, & Ayah K. **

=**Chief Justice Warren Earl Burger** = The Chief Justice of this case was Warren Earl Burger. Born into an unwealthy family, Burger, the fourth child of seven was born on September 17, 1907, in St. Paul, Minnesota. His father, Charles Burger, worked as a cargo inspector for a railroad company and was also a traveling salesman. At the age of nine years old, Burger decided that it was time for him to help with family finances; thus, he became a newspaper delivery boy. Burger was very successful in his high school years at Johnson High School in St. Paul. There he participated in music, different seasoned sports, school newspaper, and student government. After high school, Burger was offered a partial scholarship from Princeton, but sadly, he had to deny the offer due to his family's financial situation; but he didn't give up: instead, he attended at the University of Minnesota. In order to support himself during his college years, Burger worked for an insurance agency. In 1931 Burger completed his bachelor with a degree in law. His career as a U.S. Court of Appeals jurist first began in 1956, this was for the District of Columbia Circuit. Soon Burger established his credentials as a law-and-order judge. In 1969 Burger was appointed by Richard Nixon, the U.S. president at the time, to become Chief Justice for the Supreme Court. Warren Earl Burger served 17 years as Supreme Court Justice in the 1900's, which was the longest term anyone had ever served in during that time period. =**Documents or amendments to the Constitution relevant to the case** = One amendment relating to this case is the First Amendment: one of the many rights it grants Americans is the freedom of the press, or the right for people to write and publish without government restraints or censorship. This played an important role in this court case because the federal government wanted to prohibit the publication of government papers in The New York Times and the Washington Post. In the end, restrictions were set, slightly violating this amendment, stating that governments can only censor the press under the circumstances in which the works would greatly harm the nation; but, the government is never allowed to set a prior restraint. =** Main issue/argument of the case ** = Since this Court Case had two sides it also had two arguments: =** Members of the Court ** = At this time, the Supreme Court consisted of these Justices: (those who concurred listed as): Hugo L. Black, William O. Douglas, William J. Brennan Jr, Potter Stewart, Byron R. White, and Thurgood Marshall. Black and Douglas deeply believed that the censorship the U.S. government was trying to place on the press was a direct and illegal violation of our right to freedom of speech and press as Americans. The three men who opposed and sided with the United States were John Marshall Harlan, Harry A. Blackmun, and Chief Justice, Warren E. Burger.
 * The United States- According to the United States, the 1st Amendment does NOT guarantee total freedom of the press, specifically when the United States’ security is at stake. The Supreme Court must create a balance between the essential importance of right to a free and public press and the similarly important obligation of the Federal Government to protect the nation and its citizens. By permitting the people of this country the publication of these important documents, a dangerous precedent for future cases involving national security would be established.
 * The New York Times- According to the New York Times, the 1st Amendment is what protects the press along with the newspapers and the publication of these documents. The population of Americans deserves the right to know what is happening in regards to the safety of their country, no matter what. On top of all of that, the Government unsuccessfully showed that the national security of the United States would be endangered if publication of the Pentagon Papers was to occur.

<span style="color: #000080; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">**The Decision** <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">On June 30th, 1971 (five days after the initial hearing), the Supreme Court made its decision. The vote was 6-3 (in favor of //The New York Times//), stating that no former restrictions can be set upon the publications of the press.The three justices that dissented were Burger, Harlan, and Blackmun. These were the 3 people that ruled against The New York Times. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger dissented, because he felt that the imperative of a free and unfettered press comes into collision with the effective functioning of a complex modern government. He believed that New York Times should have discussed the material with them before it was published for all to see. Justices’ John Harlan and Harry Blackmun agreed with the Chief Justice and felt there was a lack of attention towards national security and the rights of the executive. The six justices that ruled in favor of Times were Justice Black, Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, White, and Marshall. =<span style="color: #000080; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">**Our opinions** = <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">**Ayah:** <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">When it comes down to the case of New York Times vs. United States I would have to say that the United States' argument was completely unjust, so I agree with the New York Times. The fact that the United States was going back on their documented words written in the Bill of Rights is wrong. The New York Times was publishing the truth, it's not like they were lying or exaggerating about anything, how is that bad? The truth does hurt sometimes. On top of the fact that the arguments of the United States were unfair, they also failed to prove the harms of reveling information of the "Pentagon Papers" to the public. The New York Times not only fought for the rights their company, but they also fought the rights of the entire nation. In this case the United States was changing the way the 1st Amendment was written, which they have no right in doing so. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">For the most part, I agree with the Supreme Court's ruling in this case. Americans should not be silenced or restricted from seeing the truth. The thought of a government hiding tons of information from its citizens scares me as in a country like ours, it is //our// country and should stay like that. I agree with the restriction that if information to be published will harm the nation can be censored because sometimes, doing so will better protect the people, not just blind them. If information regarding military strategies that will affect our strategies in the futures is to be censored--so be it, no harm done. If the government censors something like the Internet to prevent the spread of new ideas, that would scare me. The main part of this ruling that concerns me, however, is the level of 'harm' needed to be prophesied to hit the nation without censoring. The decision did not make this very clear and I fear this could be used to censor things that really aren't that harmful. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">**LeDea:** <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">In the case of New York Times vs. United States I agree with New York Times. In 1971 they posted the “Pentagon Papers” which was a top-secret Pentagon study that documented the blunders and deceptions of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. The Government claimed that the publication of the papers would endanger the security United States and directed them not to publish the documents. The New York Times stated that the 1st Amendment protected their rights in the publication of the document. The U.S then said that the 1st Amendment didn’t guarantee absolute freedom of the press, when the nation’s security is involved. I agree with the New York Times, I think this is in violation of the 1st Amendment, the freedom of press. I don’t think publishing the Pentagon Papers would have imposed a threat to the U.S. I believe that it’s the New York Times responsibility to inform the American people with good or bad news. =<span style="color: #000080; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">**If the Opposite Occurred** = <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">I think that if the opposite occurred we, the citizens of the United States of America wouldn't have the same rights that we do today. For example as mentioned earlier the amendment that was relevant to this case was the First Amendment. Within the First Amendment it is stated that all U.S. citizens have the freedom of press and that the government cannot interfere with what we choose to write or speak about; however, if the majority of the Supreme Court had voted against the New York Times those rights would currently be different from the ones originally written. By voting in favor of the United States our right of freedom as Americans would be completely altered. The government would be able to censor anything they don't think is appropriate or don't agree with. For instance, if somebody expressed their hatred towards an important official working for the government that person could have serious consequences. This ruling definitely prevented us as a nation from taking a large step into that direction towards a more almost authoritarian government. Not necessarily authoritarian, but a more controlling government system where the people have less rights and freedoms. Overall, had the Supreme Court come in favor of the United States, we as citizens may not have known all that we do now. **This is also an issue about whether or not the government can keep secrets, even if the govt claims that the secrets are in the interest of national security. It's not just a 1st Amendment issue.**
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Bradley: **

Here is a link to a funny cartoon relating to the censorship of the press. This cartoonist seems to take the view of the United States had this cartoon been drawn relating to this court case: [] **good one!** = = =<span style="color: #000080; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">**Bibliography** =

"Burger, Warren Earl." //West's Encyclopedia of American Law//. Ed. Shirelle Phelps and Jeffrey Lehman. 2nd ed. Vol. 2. Detroit: Gale, 2005. 167-169. //Gale Virtual Reference Library//. Web. 14 Feb. 2012.

Moise, Edwin E. "Pentagon Papers." //Americans at War//. Ed. John P. Resch. Vol. 4: 1946-Present. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2005. 154-156. //Gale Virtual Reference Library//. Web. 14 Feb. 2012.

"New York Times Co. v. United States (1971)." //Infoplease: Encyclopedia, Almanac, Atlas, Biographies, Dictionary, Thesaurus. Free Online Reference, Research & Homework Help. — Infoplease.com//. Web. 14 Feb. 2012. <http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar25.html>.

"New York Times Co. V. United States." //Gale Encyclopedia of American Law//. Ed. Donna Batten. 3rd ed. Vol. 7. Detroit: Gale, 2010. 263-265. //Gale Virtual Reference Library//. Web. 14 Feb. 2012.

"New York Times Co. v. United States." //West's Encyclopedia of American Law//. Ed. Shirelle Phelps and Jeffrey Lehman. 2nd ed. Vol. 7. Detroit: Gale, 2005. 239-241. //Gale Virtual Reference Library//. Web. 14 Feb. 2012.

//<span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">NEW YORK TIMES v. UNITED STATES //. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 14 February 2012. <//<span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1970/1970_1873 //>.

Original Artist. New York Times. Digital image. //www.CartoonStock.com//. Web. 14 Feb. 2012. [].

**7/7 - Biblio** **26/28 - Content -- Nicely done. Good analysis, but don't forget the secrecy issue. Plus, Nixon tried to get this stuff suppressed even though it didn't originate during his administration. Why didn't he want it released?** **4/5 Organization - Italicize //New York Times// and //Washington Post// every time you use it.** **37/40 Total**