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
Film still from the Steven Spielberg film “The Post.”
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
© 2024 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
- 1As 'Red Hot' 2024 for Legal Industry Comes to Close, Leaders Reflect and Share Expectations for Next Year
- 2Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 3Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 4Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 5Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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