There are several other legal provisions that prohibit and penalize the dissemination of information that Congress considers to constitute a sufficient threat to national security to justify this result. These include 42 U.S.C. §§ 2161-2166, which deal with the Atomic Energy Commission`s power to classify and disseminate “restricted data” [“restricted data” is an artificial term used exclusively by the Atomic Energy Act]. In particular, 42 U.S.C. § 2162 authorizes the Atomic Energy Commission to classify certain information. 42 U.S.C. § 2274 (a) provides penalties for a person who: With the injunctions lifted, the newspapers ended their series. Although a million copies were sold, the Times book`s version of the study sparked little further debate about the Vietnam War. When the official government version came out in September, only 500 copies had been sold. “This bill criminalizes exposing the methods, techniques and materials used in the transmission of encrypted or encrypted messages across this country.
Moreover, it is criminal to reveal the methods used by this nation to break the secret codes of a foreign nation. It also prohibits, under certain penalties, the disclosure of information that could have fallen into the hands of this government as a result of such a breach of the code. Since I am obliged to deal with the merits of these cases, I do not agree with the opinion and judgments of the Court. That`s not to say Congress and the courts have no role to play. Undoubtedly, Congress has the power to enact specific and appropriate criminal laws to protect government property and preserve government secrets. Congress has passed such laws, and some of them are of very colorful relevance to the obvious circumstances of these cases. And when a prosecution is initiated, it is up to the courts to decide the applicability of the criminal law under which charges are laid. If Congress were to pass a specific law authorizing civil proceedings in this area, the courts would also be required to rule on the constitutionality of such a law and its applicability to proven facts.
“The general thought,” he said, “was that if you lose the previous case of omission, there is no chance of winning the case.” The opposite has happened, said Lee C. Bollinger, president of Columbia University and another editor of National Security, Leaks and Freedom of the Press. “In practice, the press and government have come to the mindset that there will be no prior restrictions or subsequent prosecutions — that it would violate the spirit of the First Amendment,” he said. “Apart from the progressive affair, the government has not persecuted the press in any way.” The constitutional restrictions on prior restriction of expression are so clear as they have been since the days of Near v. Minnesota. (1931), until recently in Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe. (1971), we have had few opportunities to deal with cases involving prior restrictions on reporting on matters of public interest. There is therefore little difference between the members of the Court as regards resistance to pre-publication restrictions. However, respect for this fundamental constitutional principle does not facilitate these cases.
In these cases, the imperative of a free and unfettered press clashes with another imperative, that of the effective functioning of a complex modern government and, in particular, the effective exercise of certain constitutional powers of the executive. Only those who regard the First Amendment as absolute in all circumstances – a view I respect but reject – can find such simple or easy cases. “In journals, scientific journals and even in everyday life, articles containing information and other data that should have been suppressed in whole or in part for safety reasons have been published.” These immediate interests exert a kind of hydraulic pressure that casts doubt on what was previously clear and to which even well-established legal principles will bow. (Emphasis added.) The amendments were proposed to limit and limit the general powers granted to the executive, legislative and judicial branches two years earlier in the original constitution. The Bill of Rights transformed the original constitution into a new charter, according to which no branch of government could restrict the freedom of the press, speech, religion, and assembly of the people. Yet the Attorney General argues and some members of the court seem to agree that the general powers of government adopted in the original Constitution should be interpreted in such a way as to limit and limit the specific and emphatic guarantees of the Bill of Rights adopted later. I can`t think of a greater perversion of history. Madison and the other First Amendment authors, capable men who are not properly discussed in today`s statements. Since material poses a significant threat to national interests and is subject to criminal sanctions, a responsible press may decide never to publish the most sensitive material.