The papers included about 7,000 pages describing the amount of boo Mbps, raids casualties that were kept from the mainstream public and influence. In 1971 t he Pentagon Papers were discovered and exposed by Daniel Lesser, who handed the information n the New York times and the Washington post. 2.
The government sought a prior restraint against the New York time against the Washington Post because the government believed that releasing the excerpt s to the public like hey were doing would endanger the country and it was a threat to national s security. Also, the government wanted to restrain New York Times from exploiting the information on Inside the study because it might have created an uprising against the government and whet ere they could be trusted. 3.
The court found the prior restraint unconstitutional because the government was basically limiting the right to press. By restraining the New York Times and the Washing ton Post to expose the excerpts of the Pentagon Papers was violating the New York Time s and it writers their first amendment. The court also found the restraint unconstitutional beck use their was no specific evidence that exposing the studies will endanger the country’s secure TTY therefore, making congress’ argument invalid. 4. Greer with the words of Justice Harlan saying that the court does not have a adequate time to review and read all the pages on the study and determine whether the info urination was hurting the country and that the court had been ” almost irresponsibly feverish in De ailing with these cases. ” During this time the country was going through great trouble with civil rights and fight against communism, so there is no time for the American government to be h ding secrets and sighting against its people.
Another, way I agree with the words of Justice Hard an is that courts should make a bigger deal because this case is very important and can cause countries to collapse. 5. If were a writer for the New York Times I would publish excerpts from the P montage Papers because in my opinion the people deserve to know the truth no matte r the circumstances. Would have published the papers because these “studies” are very serious a ND can uncover the truth behind the government.
Many people can find bombing all these innocence NT people cruel and unusual punishment and can cause citizens to question their government and sky themselves whether they are really safe or not. 6. When a television en;ark plans to broadcast soldier’s flagellated coffins bee Eng returned to the US, prior restraint will be unconstitutional because showing d dead soldiers will only do them justice and show how hard they have fought for their country.
A Iso, broadcasting the coffins of dead soldiers does not reveal any vulnerability in a country there before its legal and this action is being protected by the first amendment. If a magazine features an interview with and photographs of a seriously wounded soldier, I believe that censoring the I terrier should be unconstitutional the citizens deserve the severity of a battle and war and shoo old learn how to be very cautious even inside the county.
Censoring the fact that there might be a terrorist attack should be unconstitutional because the citizens of a country deserve to learn how to be safe and hiding this type of information can result in many deaths. Prior Restraint on a news report revealing a map of where soldiers are position should be constitutional to cent sore because revealing this information can result a loss of many lives and a war which is al ways bad for an economy and government.