The undeclared war in Vietnam caused a great deal of public protest during the late 1960s and early 1970s. A political scientist, Daniel Ellsberg, working for the Pentagon stole and copied a classified paper. The paper was entitled, "History of United States Decision-Making Process of Vietnam Policy" which was then published by the New York Times. The government stopped the Times from publishing the papers. The court sided with the New York Times in a 6-3 vote.
I don't really agree with this decision because one it was confidential papers and two they did not have consent of whoever published it. The public should know how the government makes decisions but not in this type of fashion. The state and foreign policy were in jeopardy in this type of case and the New York Times shouldn't have been able to release the Pentagon Papers.
The per curiam decision made in the Times case was that "any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity." This means that the New York Times is allowed to publish these types of things even though it might spark issues. I don't really agree with this because the government should try and maintain order.
No comments:
Post a Comment