Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe First Amendment: PRESS PROTECTED SO THAT IT COULD BARE THE SECRETS OF GOVERNMENT & INFORM PEOPLE
From Justice Black's concurrence in 1971's decision in New York Times v. United States (emphasis added):
"In the First Amendment, the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. THE PRESS WAS PROTECTED SO THAT IT COULD BARE THE SECRETS OF GOVERNMENT AND INFORM THE PEOPLE. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell. In my view, far from deserving condemnation for their courageous reporting, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other newspapers should be commended for serving the purpose that the Founding Fathers saw so clearly. In revealing the workings of government that led to the Vietnam war, the newspapers nobly did precisely that which the Founders hoped and trusted they would do."
SOURCE: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0403_0713_ZC.html
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
4 replies, 1626 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (25)
ReplyReply to this post
4 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The First Amendment: PRESS PROTECTED SO THAT IT COULD BARE THE SECRETS OF GOVERNMENT & INFORM PEOPLE (Original Post)
kpete
Aug 2013
OP
That was the old way, now the state propaganda organs exist to keep us mis-informed.
bemildred
Aug 2013
#1
I was taught that in school in the late 50's. Keeping the government in check was the primary
RC
Aug 2013
#2
Too bad our 'consitutional scholar' doesn't see it that way (now that he's in office)
FiveGoodMen
Aug 2013
#3
bemildred
(90,061 posts)1. That was the old way, now the state propaganda organs exist to keep us mis-informed.
That's why we sold them all to corporations and very wealthy owners of corporations and got rid of that nasty "fairness doctrine".
RC
(25,592 posts)2. I was taught that in school in the late 50's. Keeping the government in check was the primary
purpose of the press.
The 4th estate. The 4th branch of the government
But now the same people that own our government, also own the news sources. Hence we have agencies like the NSA that up till recently, spied on American citizens in secret and nobody seem to care. Look at Edward Snowden's treatment in the press. People right here on DU echo the same talking points as somehow being factual. All Snowden did was his duty as an American citizen, as required by the oath to uphold the Constitution, he was required to take for the job he held.
The 4th estate. The 4th branch of the government
But now the same people that own our government, also own the news sources. Hence we have agencies like the NSA that up till recently, spied on American citizens in secret and nobody seem to care. Look at Edward Snowden's treatment in the press. People right here on DU echo the same talking points as somehow being factual. All Snowden did was his duty as an American citizen, as required by the oath to uphold the Constitution, he was required to take for the job he held.
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)3. Too bad our 'consitutional scholar' doesn't see it that way (now that he's in office)
K