Protecting Whistleblowers | New York Times Co. v. United States
Vložit
- čas přidán 11. 01. 2018
- I wrote a new book all about the Supreme Court. Order your copy here: amzn.to/45Wzhur
Patreon: / iammrbeat
Mr. Beat's band: electricneedler...
Mr. Beat on Twitter: / beatmastermatt
In episode 24 of Supreme Court Briefs, a man exposes dark government secrets about the Vietnam War, and gets in big trouble from the government for it. Should whistleblowers be protected?
Produced by Matt Beat. Music by Electric Needle Room (Matt Beat). All images found in public domain or used under fair use guidelines. Punching sound effect: Mike Koening (CC) soundbible.com/...
Check out cool primary sources here:
www.oyez.org/c...
Other sources used:
en.wikipedia.o...
en.wikipedia.o...
McNamara, Robert (1996). In Retrospect. Random House.
www.history.com...
www.law.cornel...
magicvalley.com...
www.nytimes.co...
www.pbs.org/pov...
Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara creates the Vietnam Study Task Force at the Pentagon to create a study of the Vietnam War, which, by the way, was raging on the time with no end in sight. This study was to remain classified but released to the public eventually, as McNamara wanted to leave a written record for historians.
Working on this task force was a dude named Daniel Ellsberg, who became very troubled by what he found. You see, the Pentagon was telling the American public one thing, but actually doing other things. For example, the Pentagon was lying about escalating the war even when victory was hopeless. It had covered up doing some quite horrible things, like illegal bombings in places like Cambodia and Laos, and the use of chemical warfare.
Well Ellsberg, who had become strongly against the Vietnam War, decided he was going to fight the power! In October 1969, he and his friend Anthony Russo began secretly photocopying pages from this study, which eventually became known as The Pentagon Papers. By the way, the Pentagon Papers were thousands of pages long.
So yeah, he photocopies and decides to take them to the press to expose all of the Pentagon’s dirty secrets. In March 1971, he gave 43 volumes of the Pentagon Papers to Neil Sheehan, a reporter for The New York Times. On June 13, 1971, the New York Times began publishing a series of articles based on what Ellsberg had leaked. It also included excerpts from the actual Pentagon Papers.
When President Richard Nixon read these articles, he was like, “this kind of makes our government look bad...plus, isn’t this putting our national security at risk?” By the way, that’s EXACTLY how he sounded. A couple days later, the Nixon administration got a federal court to force the New York Times to stop publishing articles about the Pentagon Papers. Nixon’s Attorney General, John Mitchell, argued that Ellsberg and Russo were guilty of breaking the Espionage Act of 1917, so this “prior restraint,” or pre-publication censorship, was justified. In fact, the Nixon administration argued that the Times publishing the Pentagon Papers put the country’s security at risk.
Meanwhile, the Washington Post got in on the action and began publishing its own articles about the Pentagon Papers. The assistant U.S. Attorney General, William Rehnquist, a future Supreme Court chief justice, also tried to prevent the Post from publishing any more Pentagon Papers secrets. Eventually, 17 other newspapers published parts of the study.
On June 28, 1971, Ellsberg surrendered to face criminal charges under the Espionage Act. The next day, a young Senator named Mike Gravel, who inexplicably throws a rock in a pond later in life, read the Pentagon Papers out loud for three hours, entering them into the Senate record. As you could imagine, by the time the American public is fired up about the revelations contained in these documents.
Newspapers kept publishing stories about the Pentagon Papers, and the District Court for the District of Columbia and Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit both let them, so the Supreme Court decided to quickly step in, combining the cases against both the New York Times and the Washington Post. In case you hadn’t figured this one out by now, this was an obvious First Amendment issue. The Court heard arguments about whether or not the Nixon administration's efforts to prevent the publication of the Pentagon Papers went against the First Amendment. Was prior restraint justified? Did releasing this information put national security at risk?
My book about everything you need to know about the Supreme Court is now available!
Amazon: amzn.to/3Jj3ZnS
Bookshop (a collection of indie publishers): bookshop.org/books/the-power-of-and-frustration-with-our-supreme-court-100-supreme-court-cases-you-should-know-about-with-mr-beat/9781684810680
Barnes and Noble: www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-matt-beat/1142323504?ean=9781684810680
Amazon UK: www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=the+power+of+our+supreme+court&crid=3R59T7TQ6WKI3&sprefix=the+power+of+our+supreme+courth%2Caps%2C381&ref=nb_sb_noss
Mango: mango.bz/books/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-by-matt-beat-2523-b
Target: www.target.com/p/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-by-matt-beat-paperback/-/A-86273023
Walmart: www.walmart.com/ip/The-Power-of-Our-Supreme-Court-How-the-Supreme-Court-Cases-Shape-Democracy-Paperback-9781684810680/688487495
Chapters Indigo: www.chapters.indigo.ca/en-ca/books/the-power-of-our-supreme/9781684810680-item.html?ikwid=The+Power+of+Our+Supreme+Court&ikwsec=Home&ikwidx=0#algoliaQueryId=eab3e89ad34051a62471614d72966b7e
The argument I have against people who think whistleblowers *should* be prosecuted goes something like this:
"If the United States doesn't want people to think they do bad things, then don't do them in the first place."
Obviously, exposing tactical information like missile silos or military weapons research, or doxxing officials should be banned. But exposing the government for doing ILLEGAL activity against it's citizens, allies or even enemies- should always be upheld by the first amendment.
TRUE!! Protect whistle blowers!
tbh doxxing officials should not be banned
they SHOULD live in fear
@@Pulzyfr This is stupid. Officials should fear of being voted out of office, not being murdered by crazy people.
Government: *does something illegal*
whistleblower: *tells people*
government: "Wait, thats illegal"
"If exposing a crime is considered a crime, you are being ruled by criminals." -Edward Snowden
Laws for thee, not the bourgeoisie
spent two hours in class going over this and understanding it, I think I learned as much in this six minute video lol. Good work
That means a lot, truly. Thank you! :)
Mr. Beat got a test in two hours wish me luck
Good luck
@@flywingguy4175 Did you do well on the test?
@@Autumn9 damn 5 y later lol
You know what’s funny Mr. Beat? I did a presentation on this for my U.S Government class in November 2017 and of course I sided with free speech lol
+Harry Christofi Well good! And what a weird coincidence. I should have released this earlier apparently. :)
+Mr. Beat It’s cool Mr. Beat that you didn’t release it earlier it was a two people presentation so my friend and fellow Senior Billy Jack Drexel and I helped each other on this and of course we bashed Trump’s blackmail of censoring the media because he did threaten to do such an unconstitutional act XD
+Harry Christofi The First Amendment is constantly under attack, I'm afraid
+Mr. Beat True even under Bush and Obama with them jailing whistleblowers it’s just that the current President’s ego is so huge that he makes even more obvious that he isn’t a huge first amendment fan XD
+Harry Christofi Yeah it's a bit more scary now for sure
Mike Gravel is one of my favorite senators in history.
The guy is simply amazing.
BADASS.
He ran for president this year.
@@elijahfordsidioticvarietys8770 did he throw a rock in the lake again?
@@San_Deep2501 Yes
3:07 "Who inexplicably throws a rock into a pond later in life"🤣🤣🤣
"Gravel Throws a Rock." Great headline.
One thing that kinda bothers me is that Russo probably would have been convicted had the prosecution not made a technical error. So, the newspapers were not in error to publish the infromation, but there was no legal means for them to obtain that information in the first place. So, how is the press supposed to serve as a bulwark against the government?? Seems to me, our system is (mis)designed to require that (certain kinds of) information that the public needs to know can only be obtained illegally. Now, we have Snowden. History repeats itself?? Surely, there must be a system in which breaking the law is not required for people to find out what their government is doing???
Mr. Beat is my favorite history teacher, even though I've been out of school for well over a decade.
Your videos have helped me so much with AP gov!! I have my AP exam today, and for the past week I’ve been watching all your Supreme Court briefs. Hopefully I do well today!! Thanks for the helpful vids 😁👍🏽
What did you get?
Whistleblowers are a blurry issue. On the one hand, people should be able to know about shady things the government is doing, but on the other hand, that effectively makes confidentiality a moot classification.
nah, only the government thinks whistleblowing is blurry becquse it affects their interests, a private citizen has absolutely no obligation whatsoever to keep the secrets of the state, if there’s a spy, that’s different, but Johnny, a32 year old aspiring journalist, who gets sent a confidential email on accident, should not be obligated to identify the email as confidential and keep it secret, he has the right to divulge whatever he wants, it’s the government’s fault that the email got leaked
"that effectively makes confidentiality a moot classification"
I disagree. Probably most documents classified as confidential are not leaked.
@@Doctor_Straing_Strange Johnny may not be under any such obligation, but the person who sent it to him certainly is.
@@Compucles of course, that's why they work for the government. Personally, I think they should be legally allowed to divulge secrets if they have a moral case against them, or even better, a legal one.
Let's face it U.$ politicians are burnt out raising money all the time and reach their highest level of incompetence by the time they appoint a WWII bean counter whiz kid from Ford as a Sec. of Defense. MacNAMera was screwing the nation over an Imperialist war he couldn't man up and tell LBJ no to.
Today is the release of my band's new EP, "Pitchfork Won't Review This." Download it for "pay what you want" here: electricneedleroom.bandcamp.com/album/pitchfork-wont-review-this.
Have you seen The Post? What are your opinions about the Pentagon Papers and the Vietnam War in general?
"Pretending" is a pretty solid track :)
I wish I had the stem files of the song, to give it a proper mixing/mastering. Not hating on whoever did it, but I think there's potential for a much better sound.
+sorry for bat english Thanks for listening :)
I’m not lying but Antony Russo was my sisters god father and him and my grandma were dating at the time until he died rip Tony
I'm so glad the court ruled in favour of freedom of the press, this case proved something very important to our democracy: Judicial Independence. It was the government going against a news company and the law sided with them even though the government HATED it.
When he said he made the video “because of the president trying to stop a book from being published because it makes him look bad” I thought “what a timely video”. Then he said “and also a new movie called The Post is coming out” and I remembered that this is a regular occurrence.
I like these sir. Thank you very much for your time and especially editing
Damn. Hugo Black died later that year
Of course, it would've been different had the Pentagon Papers actually contained sensitive information about the on-going war effort or the military itself. The Government still has the right to restrict access to such important secrets.
No. The government lied to the American People about winning the war when we had clearly lost. They lied about why we were even there in the first place. Communism was never a threat, they just used it as a boogeyman to invade a poor tiny country.
Governments don’t have rights, only individuals.
R.I.P Daniel Ellsberg, thank you for your important service.
RIP Mike Gravel
I didnt know mike gravel was this cool!
Hey Mr. Beat, can you do a video covering the Supreme Court Case Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman? This case also covers the topic of the First Amendment.
I'll definitely check that one out
Freedom of the press is one of our country's most important freedoms. I just wish that the press of today would live up to these lofty ideals instead of making a mockery them . Yesterday Don Lemon on CNN repeatedly use the word "shithole" and claimed that President Trump used it in referring to underdeveloped countries.
Poe's Law in action here folks
President Trump's did refer to African countries as shit-holes
www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2018/01/11/us/politics/trump-shithole-countries.amp.html
...but Trump did say that. I don't believe that our news should be as biased as it is, and CNN is certainly guilty of that bias at times. But in this case Lemon was just repeating a thing that the president DID say.
Keep up the good work, Mr B, being that the American public school system has committed many errors & omissions in its educational process, thereby necessitating educational channels such as yours.
+Patrick Anthony Pontillo That means a lot. Thank you :) And yes, this topic is so ridiculously important. Sad to say, many American history teachers don't even get to the Pentagon Papers.
Cool thanks for the review Mr.Beast
Hmm... Says Do NOT follow us on Twitter on your band's website... Reverse psychology?
Perhaps :)
Thanks for these videos. It becomes a playlist.
Hmmm...that Anthony Russo reminds me of a certain director.
rip senator gravel, he was one of the good ones
0:36 RIP Daniel Ellsberg
Any time Robert McNamara or any other of the Whizz Kids show up in history I automatically get nervous
I don’t think it should be against the law to release ANYTHING confidential that the government has done/made, national security and non.
We watched this in class yesterday
What happened with Edward Snowden then?
RIP Mike gravel.
Another shared good one.
+P.M. Laberge Thanks so much :D
Thank you, good presentation.
Imagine if they attempt for years to force you from your home so that they may attempt to destroy all the evidence.
wait so if Schenck had published his flyers in a newspaper instead then he would've been okay because free press?
Is the pond that Mike Gravel through the rock into Spreckels Lake in San Francisco? This question has been eating me alive.
Thanks again for making learning so fun!
President During this time: Richard Nixon
Chief Justice: Warren E. Burger
Argued June 25, 1971
Decided June 30, 1971
Case Duration: 5 Days
Decision: 6-3 in favor of NYT (Marshall, Brennan, Douglas, White, Black, Stewart. Burger, Harlan, Blackmun for US.)
Hugo Black first voted against freedom of speech and then he votes for it, tinker vs the school
Daniel Ellsberg is a hero. Edward Snowden is also a hero, who should be pardoned for doing the right thing.
Thanks for this series supreme court briefs. You give an easy explanation that doesn't get bogged down in legal details. Trump's legal problems have spurred my interest in the judicial branch.
Edit:I'd also like to know the difference in the Elsbeth and Assange cases. They sound the same to me.
Thanks again
Can we get the case of the Internment of Japanese Americans please.
+sibtain ali That one is definitely coming soon.
thanks!
Rape of Nanking as well
So would this apply to Julian Assange??
It should. I'm hoping SCOTUS gets the Assange case so that they strike down large parts of the Espionage Act
This was Justice Black’s last hurrah. He was dead soon after.😢
Daniel Ellsberg I read about him in high school
Do 2000 election court case
+Luke Detering I plan to by the end of the year
Luke Detering did some in 2000 election video and maybe more
Mike Gravel 2020!
Funny! I just picked up the first volume of the printed pentagon papers from the library
New York Times Compnay v. United States (1971)
Robert McNamara, Secretary of Defense, created the Vietnam Study Task Force at the Pentagon
- McNamara wanted keep this record confidential just to leave a written record for historians, but it was eventually released into the public
- Daniel Ellsberg was assigned to do this task
- he saw how the Pentagon is lying to the American publics
- teamed up with his friend Anthony Russo and printed photo copies from the study (the true informations, known as the pentagon paper)
In March 1971, Ellsberg gave 43 volumes of the 1000+ pages long Pentagon Paper to Neil Sheehan, a reporter for The New York Times
- on June 13, 1971, the New York times began to published articles based on the leaked information
- Nixon got mad and his administration forces TNYT to publish articles about the Pentagon
- The Washington Post and 17 other news companies published parts of the article
- Very chaotic so the supreme court stepped in
- ruled that the pentagon paper does not put national security at risk and restricting press was unconstitutional
- the press was to serve the governed, not the governors
Thank you for the info Mr. Beat!
Side note:
Jerky boys named their main character after Anthony Russo.
edit: subd
+Lets Go Flying I had no idea about that. Thanks for watching and joining us :)
oh I was kidding. Great video by the way.
+Lets Go Flying lol nice
+Lets Go Flying and thanks a lot! :)
dude why are social studies teachers SOOOOOOOOOO cooler than the other teachers? 😃
How had the Espionage Act of 1917 not been repealed by Nixon?
Who knew the person behind the marvel universe was a whistleblower.
I feel like there are some parallels here with Assange and Snowden. Couldn't this be used in their defense?
NYT v US protects the press who publish these secrets from prior restraint from the government. It doesn't help the government employees who leak them at all.
@@guidototh6091 Ah, I see. So perhaps Assange then. I don't think he worked for any government, did he?
@@richardleeskinneriii9640 Press reporting on these documents that were fed to Assange could not be restrained prior to their publication. That is all NYT v. US means in that example. As for the criminal case against Assange there are many charges but the more serious ones are that he actively participated with Manning, aiding and abetting Manning. That is different from the Pentagon Papers case in which Ellsberg brought these documents to the NYT. I don't believe anyone at the NYT was ever charged with directing Ellsberg what to gather, where to look, etc.
This should have been called Pentagongate
I would like to clearly state that I am listing these points and arguments for National Security over Freedom of Speech for fun and debate. I will not disclose what I really think. I am still young and open to new ideas and opinions.
If government serves the people, the governed, it is the government's duty and moral obligation to protect and secure the right's of its citizens. And to secure these right, government must protect the nation and the public. So therefore, in order to protect the rights of citizens, government must censure individuals speech and conduct if it poses a huge threat to the sercurity of a free state to protect the rights and freedoms of all. In simple terms, government censure is justified to keep us all alive and well, for we cannot enjoy our natural rights if we perish from the earth.
Secondly, there cannot be unlimted rights to freedom of speech and press. No constitutional right is an unlimited right. Just like restrictions on the Seocnd Amendment, restrictions on speech is justified.
Those were just two I could think of.
I make this reply assuming you still hold these opinions several years later and as a fairly young person as well.
To point one I believe you're correct up to a point. In this case while the government was doing terrible things in Vietnam and Cambodia, I would say that the whistleblowers would have been rightfully convicted of crimes because while these events affected soldiers, it did not directly affect Americans still in the US. However, I would argue that in the case of someone like Snowdon, he revealed that the government was actively breaking their 4th amendment right by remotely searching and spying through private citizens' technology and was therefore fully justified in leaking this information. I believe the key difference is in who is being affected by the acts.
To the second point, I have very little to work on because those restrictions you mentioned are still heavily debated such as the 2nd amendment. While the Constitution doesn't say that the rights and privileges enumerated in the Bill of Rights are unlimited, it doesn't say they're not either. Under that pretense, I suppose you could shoot down my aforementioned defense of Edward Snowden, but alas there is not and probably won't be a clear answer to any of this.
How about New York Times v. Sullivan next?
You should be a district rep or senator
because of u im being forced to write an rst essay against my will
2:00 suponea
Rip Mike Gravel. A true badass and last good senator
Anthony russo? Like the russo brothers directors?
2:16 Didn't Congress got rid of the Espionage Act?
It is still in effect, but some of it has changed
What's the song in the video?
True American hero
tbh sounds a lot like the wikileaks stuff to me but i don’t think i’m qualified enough to say for certain
are you still doing these? could do one for the abortion decision from last year...
I just released a new one!
Yo free Chelsea Manning
What song do you use in this video?
It's a song I made: open.spotify.com/track/111vEPwJqSa4WRuk6a5ecf?si=hJo0k9tLQo-3cmhIol_jJw&
I think that the supreme court the right decision since it broke the freedom.of speech and Nixion did brake the law so.
+Mummy Neo Ah yes, Nixon. Agreed though. I always tend to lean on the side of the First Amendment. If the government has something to hide, it's usually to protect themselves, not the rest of us.
17:00*
Wow
@Boeing
This obviously imperiled national security.
I”m such a big fan of you mr.beat...you should deserve 3 million to 20 million subs