New York Times Vs. United States

There have been many precedents that have helped to lead media to where it is now and where it stands within constitutional limits. One of the major precedents was The New York Times Vs. United States case that helped to determine the individuals have freedom to publish information without fear of punishment or censorship from the government.

The New York Times published a series of front-page articles that covered information within the Pentagon Papers, originally known as the “Report of the Office of the Secretary of Defense Vietnam Task Force”, beginning on June 13, 1971 (History.com, 2011). The Pentagon Papers were sent to The New York Times by Daniel Ellsberg. These papers indicated that the administration of John F. Kennedy actively helped to overthrew and assassinate South Vietnamese President Ngo Dihn Diem and included even more classified and private information (History.com, 2011). Once it was published, the U.S. Department of Justice got a temporary restraining order and argued that it was detrimental to the national security of the United States.

Washington Post and The New York Times fought for the right to be able to publish the information that was sent to them and the U.S Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Government failed to prove that there was a harm to national security but instead that the publication of the papers was justified under the first Amendment’s protection of freedom of the Press (The Encyclopedia Britannica, 2017).

 As Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart wrote, “In the absence of the governmental checks and balances present in other areas of our national life, the only effective restraint upon executive policy and power in the areas of national defense and international affairs may lie in an enlightened citizenry- in an informed and critical public opinion which alone can here protect the values of a democratic government” (History.com, 2011). In short, this stated that the government could not specifically hide behind the claim of impacting national security to silence the press about the inner workings and did not justify the claim of prior restraint.

This case can and has guided actions for professional communicators as they create messages in digital settings. It is important to know that as long as the actions are legal and do not immediately harm national security, and it cannot be held as libel or defamation. The information, as long as it can be credible and backed up by sources, should be able to be published for the public to know.

Now, current journalists will be able to still provide information concerning government wrongdoings without fear of being censored or silenced as long as it doesn’t impact the immediate national security. For instance, if a magazine interviewed a veteran who was seriously injured in the war, it would not be considered as leaked and private information as long as they had consent from the individual; however, if a news or media outlet detailed safety responses to terrorist or other attacks or private information like the detailed positions of where American troops are stationed, it would be seen as an impact and not covered by the First Amendment since there is legitimately sensitive information that could harm national security.