By Josh Barringer

 Became known as “Pentagon Papers Case”  decided together with United States v. Washington Post Co.

 Pentagon Papers (History of U.S. Decision-Making Process on Viet Nam Policy)- Defense Department report that detailed government deception with regard to the Vietnam War  Nixon Administration filed injunction to prevent NYT and WP from printing  NYT and WP appealed injunction in supreme court

 Court ruled 6-3 in favor of NYT  “Any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.”  Both newspaper published the papers to mass public outcry against the government

 This case works on the precedent that freedom of speech can be restricted in a time of “Clear and present danger” (as established in Schenk vs. US)  This decision doesn’t overturn the idea that first amendment rights can be withheld, but does establish guidelines for what constitutes a direct threat to the US  In this case, though public distrust of government ensued, there was no real danger so free press was preserved

 In the Spring of 2000, a Texas district court judge ordered the Associated Press (AP) not to publish a story about a state-guaranteed loan to a Texas shrimp farm.  Lawyers for the AP cited the precedent of NYT vs. US  The judge lifted the order after two days of hearings.  So basically unless releasing specific tactical information jeopardizing American lives, our newspaper have complete freedom of the press

Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier, 1988 About freedom of press within high schools

Background “The Spectrum” the Hazelwood School Newspaper submitted its rough draft to the Principal, Robert E. Reynolds to approve He rejected two of the articles and forbid them to run in the paper

Background One was rejected because it was on teen pregnancy and hinted at inappropriate topics such as birth control and sexual activity The other was rejected because it was on divorce and he didn’t think it appropriate to have students talk about their parents in a negative light without them having a chance to respond

Decision Court ruled 5-3 that the Principal’s actions were not unconstitutional Educators did not violate the First Amendment by censorship as long as their actions were "reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.“ Can censor anything that is "inconsistent with 'the shared values of a civilized social order.'

Repercussions Now every principal has right to review paper before it is published and remove anything she deems inappropriate This has affected me personally, as I write for “The Prowl” and Mrs. Harrell has removed certain paragraphs from one of my stories, disallowed a headline on another, and totally forbid a third.

 Near ran a tabloid in Minnesota  Published a story accusing local law enforcement of corruption, working with gangsters  A Minnesota law basically gave them the right to file an injunction silencing his paper  He appealed to the Supreme Court

 The Court ruled that the law in place which provided for censorship of "obscene, lewd, and lascivious" or "malicious, scandalous and defamatory“ print was unconstitutional  Near was allowed to publish

 Strengthened freedom of the press rights  Made that Minnesota law and those just like it around the country unconstitutional, in effect void  Established the right to print negative news about the government

   