Portfolio Post 3: Discussion 1 and 2

For Discussion 1, we examined the Pentagon Papers, which were classified documents detailing the U.S. government’s involvement in the Vietnam War. The U.S. government sought to prevent The New York Times from publishing the papers. They also aimed to stop The Washington Post, claiming national security threats. The Court ruled against the prior restraint, emphasizing that the First Amendment protects the press from government censorship. I agreed with the Court’s decision. It reinforced the essential role of a free press. A free press holds the government accountable. Still, I also understood Justice Harlan’s dissent. He argued the Court acted too hastily. There was not enough time to review the material. Harlan raised valid concerns about national security. However, I believe the Court’s decision was necessary. It prevented setting a dangerous precedent of government censorship. The public had a right to know the truth about government actions during the war.

For Discussion 2, I agreed with publishing the Pentagon Papers in 1971. The First Amendment protects the press’s right to inform the public. The documents exposed significant government lies about the Vietnam War. Concerning prior restraint, I supported the constitutional protection of the press but acknowledged exceptions. Broadcasting images of soldiers’ flag-draped coffins could be emotional. I don’t believe it would threaten national security. This holds unless there’s a specific reason to prevent it. For wounded soldiers, consent is crucial, and prior restraint should not be used if permission is given. The case for prior restraint becomes stronger with articles detailing response plans for terrorist attacks. It also strengthens with articles covering troop movements. These are situations where there are clear and immediate threats to public safety. Military operations also be at risk. National security must be considered. The press’s role in informing the public should generally take precedence. This is true as long as there’s no imminent danger.