60.3k views
3 votes
In the New York Times v. United States case, Justices Byron White and Thurgood Marshall said they were reluctant to impose a prior restraint on a newspaper in the absence of:

a) Clear and present danger
b) Government approval
c) National security threat
d) Public outcry

User Hyeri
by
7.5k points

1 Answer

3 votes

Final answer:

In the case of New York Times v. United States, the reluctance of Justices Byron White and Thurgood Marshall to impose prior restraint was notably in the absence of a substantial national security threat. The Supreme Court's ruling underlined the high burden for the government to justify such censorship and reinforced the protection of freedom of the press.

Step-by-step explanation:

In the landmark case, New York Times v. United States (1971), often referred to as the Pentagon Papers case, Justices Byron White and Thurgood Marshall expressed their reluctance to impose a prior restraint on the publication of the Pentagon Papers by newspapers, in the absence of a national security threat. This judicial hesitancy aligned with the Supreme Court's precedent that the government cannot engage in prior restraint—meaning it cannot prevent publication in advance—without a compelling and significant reason, hinging upon significant, demonstrable harm to national security.

The Court ruled that the government's burden to justify such a prior restraint is exceptionally high, indicating that only in extreme situations where there is a clear and present danger to the security of the United States could they constitutionally impose such a measure. The case ultimately emphasized the importance of freedom of the press and set a precedent for limiting the government's ability to censor the media, balancing this against potential risks to national security.

Welcome to QAmmunity.org, where you can ask questions and receive answers from other members of our community.