A Reminder From Hollywood: Protect the Press
The real heroes are the six justices of the United States Supreme Court who ruled in New York Times Co. v. United States and United States v. Washington Post Co.
February 12, 2018 at 11:00 AM
3 minute read
At a time when traditional newspapers are under economic and political stress, “The Post” movie reminds us of the important role the Constitution envisioned for a strong and serious press.
The movie opens with Robert McNamara, defense secretary, sanguine in public about the outcome of the Vietnam War, but negative in private. Working for the Rand Corp., Daniel Ellsberg helped write the 47 volume, 7,000 page “Report on the History of U.S. Decision-Making Process on the Vietnam Policy,” colloquially called “the Pentagon Papers,” which revealed that several administrations, starting with Truman and continuously through Johnson, had misled the American people about the Vietnam War and that that war was not going well. In 1971, Ellsberg released the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times. The Nixon administration secured a temporary restraining order against the Times.
The Washington Post then obtained its own copy of the Pentagon Papers and faced difficult legal and practical decisions. Should it publish in the face of the Times restraining order and in the middle of a public offering designed to bolster its floundering financial status? Should the owner of the Post, marginalized and trivialized as a woman, overrule her male advisors, risk financial ruin for the paper and approve publication in the face of possible contempt of court? These questions and their answers provide the drama of “The Post,” but the real heroes are the six justices of the United States Supreme Court who ruled in New York Times Co. v. United States and United States v. Washington Post Co., that since a prior restraint of the press bears “a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity,” the government, although invoking the Espionage Act, did not carry its heavy burden to demonstrate “grave and irreparable danger.” The newspapers were allowed to publish.
The per curiam decision is brief, but Justice Black elaborated in a concurring opinion: “The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government.” Black reiterated the history of the Founding Fathers' desire to give “the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy.” Justice Douglas in another concurring opinion invoked the clear and unambiguous language of the First Amendment, writing, “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” To Douglas, “that leaves, in my view, no room for governmental restraint on the press.”
These are priniciples worth remembering.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAs Trafficking, Hate Crimes Rise in NJ, State's Federal Delegation Must Weigh in On New UN Proposal
4 minute readAppellate Court's Decision on Public Employee Pension Eligibility Helps the Judiciary
5 minute readWhere CFPB Enforcement Stops Short on Curbing School Lunch Fees, Class Action Complaint Steps Up
5 minute read'Confusion Where Previously There Was Clarity': NJ Supreme Court Should Void Referral Fee Ethics Opinion
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Judge Dismisses Defamation Suit by New York Philharmonic Oboist Accused of Sexual Misconduct
- 2California Court Denies Apple's Motion to Strike Allegations in Gender Bias Class Action
- 3US DOJ Threatens to Prosecute Local Officials Who Don't Aid Immigration Enforcement
- 4Kirkland Is Entering a New Market. Will Its Rates Get a Warm Welcome?
- 5African Law Firm Investigated Over ‘AI-Generated’ Case References
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250