Final answer:
Balancing national security and freedom of the press is a nuanced issue. While the government can impose limited restrictions to protect national security, such as during the Pentagon Papers case, press freedom is critical to democracy and subject to constitutional protection. Globally, the extent of press freedom varies, with some countries exercising stricter control.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question of whether it is necessary to censor the press and media in order to protect a country from terrorism and other attacks is a complex issue that touches on the balance between national security and the freedom of the press. On one hand, certain limitations are recognized as legitimate; for example, the press is restricted from publishing libelous content or compromising active military operations by revealing troop movements or identifying undercover operatives. However, freedom of the press is a fundamental principle of democracy, enshrined in the Bill of Rights, and is essential for a healthy democratic society.
Historical instances such as the Pentagon Papers case highlight the delicate nature of this balance. The Supreme Court in that case acknowledged a very limited scope for government-imposed prior restraint. It is generally accepted that while the government can set boundaries in the interest of national security, these boundaries should be applied in a limited and careful manner so as not to stifle the essential role of the media as a watchdog.
The situation varies globally, with some countries exercising much stricter control over the media than the United States. Notably, incidents in Tanzania and other countries illustrate how governments can sometimes suppress press freedom under the guise of maintaining peace and order.