Watch the following video (5 ½ minutes): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msTCOqaeg5k . This video serves to flush out an important distinction in constitutional law. The government can prosecute persons who wrongfully acquire (steal) information. But whether or not it can stop the press from releasing that information is an entirely different matter because of the First Amendment. Do you think that if Bradley had turned the information over to the NY times (like Mr. Ellsberg did) instead of Wiki Leaks, that a federal district court would have issued an injunction to stop the NY Times from printing the information (a prior restraint)? In the Wiki Leaks incident tons of confidential information was released, whereas in the Pentagon Papers case, there fewer volumes of classified material. Should the quantity of information make a difference in the decision to issue an injunction? On the other hand, what about the editorial role of the NY Times in the Pentagon Papers case? In other words, is it more acceptable to just release it all rather than permitting the editor of the NY Times instead of the President to determine what should remain classified by selectively releasing information? And Mr. Bradley-hero or zero? Give your opinion.

Question

Watch the following video (5 ½ minutes): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msTCOqaeg5k . This video serves to flush out an important distinction in constitutional law. The government can prosecute persons who wrongfully acquire (steal) information. But whether or not it can stop the press from releasing that information is an entirely different matter because of the First Amendment. Do you think that if Bradley had turned the information over to the NY times (like Mr. Ellsberg did) instead of Wiki Leaks, that a federal district court would have issued an injunction to stop the NY Times from printing the information (a prior restraint)? In the Wiki Leaks incident tons of confidential information was released, whereas in the Pentagon Papers case, there fewer volumes of classified material. Should the quantity of information make a difference in the decision to issue an injunction? On the other hand, what about the editorial role of the NY Times in the Pentagon Papers case? In other words, is it more acceptable to just release it all rather than permitting the editor of the NY Times instead of the President to determine what should remain classified by selectively releasing information? And Mr. Bradley-hero or zero? Give your opinion.

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The Answer of Watch the following video (5 ½ minutes): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msTCOqaeg5k . This video serves to flush out an important distinction in constitutional law. The government can prosecute persons who wrongfully acquire (steal) information. But whether or not it can stop the press from releasing that information is an entirely different matter because of the First Amendment. Do you think that if Bradley had turned the information over to the NY times (like Mr. Ellsberg did) instead of Wiki Leaks, that a federal district court would have issued an injunction to stop the NY Times from printing the information (a prior restraint)? In the Wiki Leaks incident tons of confidential information was released, whereas in the Pentagon Papers case, there fewer volumes of classified material. Should the quantity of information make a difference in the decision to issue an injunction? On the other hand, what about the editorial role of the NY Times in the Pentagon Papers case? In other words, is it more acceptable to just release it all rather than permitting the editor of the NY Times instead of the President to determine what should remain classified by selectively releasing information? And Mr. Bradley-hero or zero? Give your opinion.

Watch the Following Video (5 ½ Minutes): Http://www