New York Times Co. v. the United States is a famous case held in the US Supreme Court that brought up the question of limitations of freedom of speech. In 1971, the Nixon Administration attempted to prevent publishing the classified papers of the Defense Department that revealed sensitive information about the war in Vietnam (US Supreme Court). However, New York Times considered the prohibition to publish these papers a violation of the US Constitution, which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press” (US Constitution, ). As a result, the court held that the government violated the First Amendment, as the publication of the classified papers did not impose an inevitable, direct, and immediate threat to the safety of the US forces (US Supreme Court). The present paper provides a reaction to the case and discusses the limitations of freedom of speech.
I believe that the restrictions of freedom of speech brought up in the discussed case were unlawful, as the publication of the Pentagon Papers did not threaten the security of the US. The papers did not threaten the US as a nation; they only endangered the reputation of the Nixon Administration, which is legitimate. However, it should also be noticed that the New York Times published the material obtained in violation of laws, which causes both ethical and legal issues. The problem is of increased interest, as the digital age created Wiki Leaks, Sony corporate email hacks, and iCloud security breaches.
I support the notion that it is one of the news outlets’ obligations to reveal secrets to regulate the ruling power. However, I believe that newspapers and magazines should have a right to publish the material obtained illegally under several conditions. First, the outlet should not have participated in illegal activity to get this information. The creation of incentives or directing such unlawful activity should be classified as participation (Lewis). Second, the published data should pose a direct threat to any organizations or people. Third, the information should be news-worthy, which means it should touch upon a stirring social issue (Lewis). Finally, I believe that the material should adhere to ethical standards and not disclose sensitive information. These standards should be defined and maintained by news outlets.
At the same time, the government should allow online platforms to decide if they want to censor speech on ideological grounds as long as it does not harm any parties directly. According to Samples, the owners of the platforms should be viewededitorsitor in the newspaper and have the ability to regulate what they want to be published. At the same time, Crews points out that if the government is given a chance to regulate social media platforms in any way, it is likely to use the power to censor unwanted material similar to the situation with the Pentagon Papers. However, I believe that the government should make interventions at crucial moments, such as the promotion of censorship of dangerous material, such as terrorist propaganda.
In conclusion, freedom of speech is a sensitive matter that is difficult to frame. On the one hand, the First Amendment provides all the US citizens with the right to say and hear everything they want. On the other hand, some of the material may be illegal or unethical, and therefore should not be published. Hence, regulation of speech is imperative in some situations as some information may be harmful to society, the country, and democracy in general.
References
- Crews, Clyde. “How Regulation of “Harmful Speech” Online Will Do the Real Harm.” Forbes, 2019. Web.
- Lewis, Helen. “When Is it Ethical to Publish Stolen Data?” Nieman Reports, 2015. Web.
- Samples, John. “Why the Government Should Not Regulate Content Moderation of Social Media.” CATO Institute, 2019. Web.
- US Constitution. Amend. I. US Supreme Court. New York Times Co. v. the United States. 403 US 713. Web.