ch.3 optional

ch.3 optional - Alison Grimes CHAPTER 3 Spring 2011...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Alison Grimes CHAPTER 3 Spring 2011 Optional Logs 1. What did Bickel mean about the legal reality and the cost to appearance? Another way to phrase the question: Did the New York Times and the press gain an uncompromised victory in the Pentagon Papers decision? If not, what was the compromise? When refereeing to the “legal reality and the cost to appearance” Bickel was acknowledging that the ideology of the freedom of speech is not necessarily what it seems when it breaks down in the legal system. The legality of maintaining the constitution against the government while possibly protecting the safety of the public causes the idea of freedom to become transparent. 2. What point of law emerges from the Pentagon Papers case? From the Pentagon Papers case many points of law become clear. The case demonstrates the Supreme Court’s unwillingness to grant prior restraints on political speech when the government cannot make a clear showing that publication will cause a severe harm. From President Nixon, there was an injunction on the grounds that continued to argue that publication of such detailed political documents would cause irreparable danger to the national interest. After the case went to the U.S Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and the Court for District Columbia refused to stop publication, the Court granted expedited reviews of both cases. The Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment did not permit an injunction under claims that the government had not its “heavy burden” of proof to overcome the presumption that prior restraints are unconstitutional. The case showed for the first time that a majority of the Supreme Court might be willing to be enjoin publication of political speech if a publication presented an immediate, irreparable danger to national security. 3. You may want to combine answers to number 3 and number 4. Assume you find stolen, classified documents on your desk this morning. The documents reveal potential leaks in the nearby nuclear power plant. The government prohibits public disclosure of the potential leaks because the information “might aid terrorists who threaten national security.” Does the Pentagon Papers case say the First Amendment protects your right to publish the classified power plant documents? Yes or no? Explain? Yes, in this situation by way of the Pentagon Papers the First Amendment protects the right to publish these documents because the Court could claim the government did not meet their “heavy burden” of proof to overcome the presumption that prior restraints are unconstitutional. Since the Courts did not clearly state the specific circumstances of what qualifies the government of meeting their “heavy burden,” by way of the Pentagon
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Papers case the right to publish this information would be protected. Although the fact
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 5

ch.3 optional - Alison Grimes CHAPTER 3 Spring 2011...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online