United States v. New York Times

The New York Times believed that the public has the right to know what's going on in the war. This was a time of crisis where many Americans were dying. The people at home were very scared and they wanted to know everything that they could about the war. The New York Times felt that if they weren't putting out the information that they acquired, they would be doing the whole United States a disservice. The New York Times felt that they did not violate the first amendment, which is, 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; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. .
             3) For whom did the court rule?.
             The Supreme Court voted in favor of the defendant. The defendant was the New York Times. In its per curiam opinion the Court held that the government did not prevail over the "heavy presumption against" prior restraint of the press in this case. Justices Black and Douglas argued that the vague word "security" should not be used to abolish the fundamental law put in the First Amendment. Justice Brennan reasoned that since publication would not cause an inevitable, direct, and immediate event imperiling the safety of American forces, prior restraint was unjustified.
             4) What is the logic that the majority applied in support of its position? More specifically, what sections of the constitution did the majority apply to arrive at its decision? If there is a concurring opinion, explain the logic of each of the concurring decisions.
             Justices Black and Douglas wrote joint concurring opinions. In both of these concurring opinions, Black and Douglas each condemned the actions taken by the government. They called it a "flagrant, indefensible, and continuing violation of the First Amendment."" Black and Douglas declared that the language of the First Amendment is extremely clear and it clearly supports the view that "the press must be left free to publish news, whatever the source, without censorship, injunctions or prior restraints.