# data[].attributes.body
We've got all these new terms, but how exactly do they go together? What made this issue so big it had to go to court??

In 1969. Daniel Ellsberg unlocked a safe at his Rand Corporation - a prominent military contractor. He copied more than 7,000 pages of Pentagon Papers and leaked papers to New York Times reporter Neil Sheehan. The papers proved that President Lyndon B. Johnson lied about severity of Vietnam War, causing the feelings against the war to grow. The New York Times began printing portions of the report on June 13, 1971. On June 18, The Washington Post began printing portions of the Pentagon Papers. Nixon Administration tried to suppress publication of Pentagon Papers, claiming it endangered national security. New York Times and Washington Post fought for right to publish, claiming that it was their right under the First Amendment.

# data[].attributes.body
Before we dive into this case. Here are some important things and people to keep in mind.

Pentagon Papers – 7,000-page top-secret study commissioned by Unites States Department of Defense detailing the U.S.’s political and military involvement in Vietnam War

Nixon Administration – period of Richard Nixon’s presidency (1969 –1974)

Whistleblower – someone who reveal private information without authorization

Daniel Ellsberg – American political activist, military analysts, and researcher who leaked the Pentagon Papers

New York Times – American daily newspaper based in NYC who shared the Pentagon Papers

Washington Post – American daily newspaper based in D.C. who shared the Pentagon Papers

First Amendment – people of America have the right to freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition

# data[].attributes.body
Is the freedom of speech, First Amendment, inferior to the executive branch’s need to maintain secrecy of information?

# data[].attributes.body
The court ruled in favor of New York Times, allowing them to publish information concerning the Vietnam War and the nation’s role in it.

The court ruled in favor of the defendant because they agreed that the right to publish statements such as the Pentagon Papers is under the first amendment.

The actual vote count was 6-3

There were dissenting and concurring opinions, 6 being concurring and 3 dissenting.

Concurrent opinions differed from the majority opinions given that some argued that prior censorship would be permissible in certain situations. Others said that only an unrestrained press can expose deception in the government in an effective manner.

# data[].attributes.body
The case established a precedent for people’s right to be aware of issues and events.

It limited the government's ability to restrict the press and reasserted the right of the press to expose corruption within the government (1st Amendment).

This case not only strengthened the freedom of the press, but it also exemplified that corruption in the government is still possible and can be done with discretion.

# data[].attributes.body
Was this case fairly settled? How is this case still relevant in today's world?

Precious: I believe that this case was fairly settled because the decision was made in respect to the constitution. Additionally, it allowed citizens to have insight into the government's plans for further action for the Vietnam War, which I believe is important to maintain a healthy democracy.

Olivia: I believe this case is still relevant today because it grants people the right to have insight on the government and its plans, furthermore allowing them to critique and criticize these ideas freely. I think this case relates to the recent court case on the banning of TikTok not only because of it being considered an "endangerment on national security" but also because both the New York Times and TikTok are media spaces where people can freely question their government, honoring both their freedom of speech and press and the power of the people.