Freedom of Press Case Studies

Freedom of the Press 

New York Times Co. v. United States (1971) 

During the 1960s, the Department of Defense commissioned a large study of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, nicknamed the Pentagon Papers. Daniel Ellsberg, an analyst who worked on the classified report, illegally shared access to thousands of its pages with a New York Times reporter. That newspaper, along with the Washington Post, began to publish the report in 1971. Citing national security concerns, the Nixon Administration went to court to block further publication of the Pentagon Papers. (This government effort to prevent publication of materials is known as prior restraint.) 

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the New York Times. It determined the government had not shown that publication of the Pentagon Papers presented enough of a national security concern to justify prior restraint. Justice Hugo Black concurred with the majority opinion, writing, “I adhere to the view…that the injunction against the New York Times should have been vacated without oral argument when the cases were first presented to this Court. I believe that every moment’s continuance of the injunctions against these newspapers amounts to a flagrant, indefensible, and continuing violation of the First Amendment.” He continued, “To find that the President has ‘inherent power’ to halt the publication of news by resort to the courts would wipe out the First Amendment and destroy the fundamental liberty and security of the very people the Government hopes to make ‘secure.’”  

Justice Harry Blackmun dissented, arguing the case was rushed through the courts far too quickly, given its importance. He argued the executive branch needed to be given more discretion in determining when the publication of materials could impact national security. He feared that the New York Times publications would harm the United States, writing, “If, with the Court’s action today, these newspapers proceed to publish the critical documents and there results there from ‘the death of soldiers, the destruction of alliances, the greatly increased difficulty of negotiation with our enemies, the inability of our diplomats to negotiate,’ to which list I might add the factors of prolongation of the war and of further delay in the freeing of United States prisoners, then the Nation’s people will know where the responsibility for these sad consequences rests.” 

The publication of the Pentagon Papers, which among other things revealed that the government had withheld information about the state of the Vietnam War, fueled further opposition to U.S. involvement in the conflict. 

  

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) 

In 1960, supporters of the civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr., published an advertisement in the New York Times that described events of a recent civil rights march in Montgomery, Alabama, and the actions taken by local police. The ad contained a few minor inaccuracies, but most of it accurately depicted the struggles that civil rights protestors faced in Montgomery. While the ad never mentioned him by name, city commissioner L.B. Sullivan sued the newspaper, arguing it had committed libel—the publication of a false statement that harms someone’s reputation—against him. The New York Times argued it should not be held liable for the publication of false statements if the statements were not themselves defamatory or were not published with malice.  

In a unanimous 9-0 decision in 1964, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the New York Times. Justice William Brennan wrote the opinion, in which he said, “Erroneous statement is inevitable in free debate, and … must be protected if the freedoms of expression are to have the breathing space that they need … to survive.” He added that if a false statement is made without ill-intent, it does not constitute libel. A free press is crucial in supporting a self-governing society. While there have been some limits created to prevent malicious libel, American courts generally have been wary of restricting information from being published.