Steven Spielberg’s ‘The Post’ opens nationwide on Friday. Every American should see it.
Many won’t, and for political reasons. Conservatives are bashing the film, even before it opens, as a media-backslapping exercise — a thinly veiled anti-Trump, anti-Republican screed in the guise of a movie about journalism history and triumph.
Make no mistake: ‘The Post’ is as much about Donald Trump’s attacks on a free press as it is about Richard Nixon’s.
But popular culture can be as effective a teacher of civics as any classroom, and that’s why everyone should see this film. It’s about the principle that no person and no government should be able to tell anyone — not a newspaper, not a blogger, not a street-corner speaker — what he or she can’t print or say.
Every journalism student learns the story of the Pentagon Papers, which is the centerpiece of ‘The Post’. Not quite 12 years old when the case erupted in the frenetic month of June 1971, I was at best vaguely aware of it at the time. When journalism found me a few years later, late in high school and early in college, it was the Pentagon Papers story that told me this is what I wanted to do. It’s one of the stories that made me want to teach about the First Amendment, which I’ve done for the past 28 years.
For me, the Pentagon Papers story is less about Daniel Ellsberg, Neil Sheehan, Katherine Graham or Ben Bradlee than it is about Hugo Black. He was the Supreme Court justice whose concurring opinion to permit continued publication of the Papers is one of the most stirring essays ever written about a free press.
Hugo Black was a Southerner of early 20th Century. Formerly a Klansman, which he said he joined because it was necessary for Alabamians who aspired to careers in politics, he was a U.S. senator when Franklin Roosevelt named him to the Supreme Court in 1937. He became the greatest exponent of the ‘absolutist’ interpretation of the First Amendment — that the words ‘Congress shall make no law’ abridging freedom of speech and press meant exactly what they said.
Black believed that virtually any government restriction of speech and press was unconstitutional. He would have eliminated libel suits by government officials against the press. He refused to attend screenings of pornographic films in the Court’s chambers during the 1960s and 1970s cases that greatly restricted federal and state governments’ authority to control sexually explicit speech and media. He didn’t object to the showing of skin flicks in the Supreme Court building; he simply thought watching them was a waste of time because any government regulation of such speech was unconstitutional.
When the Pentagon Papers ruling came down near the end of the Court’s term in 1971, Black was ailing and nearly blind. In fact, his opinion in the case would be the last of his 34-year career. He died just three months later.
I have no idea whether ‘The Post’ will give Hugo Black the credit he’s due. That’s why it’s worth republishing Black’s opinion here. It’s realtively short, as far as Supreme Court opinions go, and it’s required reading for anyone who cares about a free press at a time when the current president of the United States would have us believe that we no longer need one.
The Government’s case against the Washington Post should have been dismissed, and the injunction against the New York Times should have been vacated without oral argument when the cases were first presented to this Court. I believe that every moment’s continuance of the injunctions against these newspapers amounts to a flagrant, indefensible, and continuing violation of the First Amendment. … In my view, it is unfortunate that some of my Brethren are apparently willing to hold that the publication of news may sometimes be enjoined. Such a holding would make a shambles of the First Amendment.
Our Government was launched in 1789 with the adoption of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, followed in 1791. Now, for the first time in the 182 years since the founding of the Republic, the federal courts are asked to hold that the First Amendment does not mean what it says, but rather means that the Government can halt the publication of current news of vital importance to the people of this country.
In seeking injunctions against these newspapers, and in its presentation to the Court, the Executive Branch seems to have forgotten the essential purpose and history of the First Amendment. When the Constitution was adopted, many people strongly opposed it because the document contained no Bill of Rights to safeguard certain basic freedoms. They especially feared that the new powers granted to a central government might be interpreted to permit the government to curtail freedom of religion, press, assembly, and speech. In response to an overwhelming public clamor, James Madison offered a series of amendments to satisfy citizens that these great liberties would remain safe and beyond the power of government to abridge. Madison proposed what later became the First Amendment in three parts, two of which are set out below, and one of which proclaimed:
“The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments, and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.” … The amendments were offered to curtail and restrict the general powers granted to the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches two years before in the original Constitution. The Bill of Rights changed the original Constitution into a new charter under which no branch of government could abridge the people’s freedoms of press, speech, religion, and assembly. Yet the Solicitor General argues and some members of the Court appear to agree that the general powers of the Government adopted in the original Constitution should be interpreted to limit and restrict the specific and emphatic guarantees of the Bill of Rights adopted later. I can imagine no greater perversion of history. Madison and the other Framers of the First Amendment, able men that they were, wrote in language they earnestly believed could never be misunderstood: “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom . . . of the press…” Both the history and language of the First Amendment support the view that the press must be left free to publish news, whatever the source, without censorship, injunctions, or prior restraints.
In the First Amendment, the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government’s power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell. In my view, far from deserving condemnation for their courageous reporting, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other newspapers should be commended for serving the purpose that the Founding Fathers saw so clearly. In revealing the workings of government that led to the Vietnam war, the newspapers nobly did precisely that which the Founders hoped and trusted they would do.
The Government’s case here is based on premises entirely different from those that guided the Framers of the First Amendment. The Solicitor General has carefully and emphatically stated:
“Now, Mr. Justice Black, your construction of . . . [the First Amendment] is well known, and I certainly respect it. You say that no law means no law, and that should be obvious. I can only say, Mr. Justice, that to me it is equally obvious that ‘no law’ does not mean ‘no law,’ and I would seek to persuade the Court that that is true. … [T]here are other parts of the Constitution that grant powers and responsibilities to the Executive, and … the First Amendment was not intended to make it impossible for the Executive to function or to protect the security of the United States.”
And the Government argues in its brief that, in spite of the First Amendment, “[t]he authority of the Executive Department to protect the nation against publication of information whose disclosure would endanger the national security stems from two interrelated sources: the constitutional power of the President over the conduct of foreign affairs and his authority as Commander-in-Chief.”
In other words, we are asked to hold that, despite the First Amendment’s emphatic command, the Executive Branch, the Congress, and the Judiciary can make laws enjoining publication of current news and abridging freedom of the press in the name of “national security.” The Government does not even attempt to rely on any act of Congress. Instead, it makes the bold and dangerously far-reaching contention that the courts should take it upon themselves to “make” a law abridging freedom of the press in the name of equity, presidential power and national security, even when the representatives of the people in Congress have adhered to the command of the First Amendment and refused to make such a law. To find that the President has “inherent power” to halt the publication of news by resort to the courts would wipe out the First Amendment and destroy the fundamental liberty and security of the very people the Government hopes to make “secure.” No one can read the history of the adoption of the First Amendment without being convinced beyond any doubt that it was injunctions like those sought here that Madison and his collaborators intended to outlaw in this Nation for all time.
The word “security” is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment. The guarding of military and diplomatic secrets at the expense of informed representative government provides no real security for our Republic. The Framers of the First Amendment, fully aware of both the need to defend a new nation and the abuses of the English and Colonial governments, sought to give this new society strength and security by providing that freedom of speech, press, religion, and assembly should not be abridged. This thought was eloquently expressed in 1937 by Mr. Chief Justice Charles Evan Hughes — great man and great Chief Justice that he was — when the Court held a man could not be punished for attending a meeting run by Communists.
“The greater the importance of safeguarding the community from incitements to the overthrow of our institutions by force and violence, the more imperative is the need to preserve inviolate the constitutional rights of free speech, free press and free assembly in order to maintain the opportunity for free political discussion, to the end that government may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes, if desired, may be obtained by peaceful means. Therein lies the security of the Republic, the very foundation of constitutional government.”