Individualism and Change: America in the 1970s

The 1970’s in the United States are thought of as an era of individualism. Virtually all aspects of culture and society changed during this time. The gay rights movement began to gain widespread support during this decade. The stock market gained another index, named Nasdaq, which would eventually become the second largest exchange in the world, behind only the New York Stock Exchange. Even music was changing throughout the country; bands like ABBA, the BeeGees, and The Village People opened the doors to the glittery world of disco. One major event that carried over from the sixties were the protests of the United States involvement in the Vietnam War. Citizens felt that the United States had no business being in Vietnam because they felt liberating

the south vietnamese people took too many resources and lives. The protesting began mostly on college campuses, as the organization: Students for a Democratic Society, began having “teach-ins” to protest how the U.S. was handling the war. Though the majority of the U.S. population still supported the war, the numbers of those who opposed it were growing. More and more people began to favor the minority idea of the war being malevolent once the troop total in Vietnam rose about 500,000. Then, on October 21, 1967, the anti-war supporters made their voices known; 100,000 protesters cluttered the Lincoln Memorial in protest. The percent of Americans that disapproved the war, skyrocketed to 50% once the effectiveness of the Tet Offensive was seen by all.
Daniel Ellsberg was among one of the millions of people who made the transition to opposing the war.

Ellsberg was a military analyst who decided that information held in the Pentagon Papers should be more readily available to the American public. The Pentagon Papers are documents that held sensitive information belonging to the United States government. To get this information out, Ellsberg illegally photocopied the report and gave them to the New York Times in March of 1971. The New York Times then proceed to print daily articles beginning on June 13, 1971. The U.S. government then got a court order that prevented the New York Times from printing any more articles. They argued that the articles were a threat to national security. In response to this, Ellsberg then sent the articles to the Washington Post, which instantly posted articles as well. The government tried to do the same thing to the Washington Post, but got denied. Within two weeks of getting denied, that case, along with the New York Times case, were in the Supreme

Court.
Even though the government felt that the articles were a threat to national security, the New York Times insisted that it was their first amendment right to be able to post the articles. They felt that it falls under the category of “press” and “speech” in the first amendment. On the other hand, the government felt that executive privilege gave them the right to stop the printing of the articles. Executive privilege is, in a nutshell, is the executive branches right to withhold information in the public interest. This privilege is controversial because the constitution does not state or grant this right to the executive branch. Both sides had logical, correct statements as to why they were in the right. The trial was going to have to come down to which argument was more convincing and could sway the majority of the Supreme Court justices.
To add on to the New York Times feeling that it was their right to print the articles, they also felt that the press must be free to inform the U.S.

people. On top of it being their right, the government never elaborated on how the printing of these journals were a threat to national security. If there was not a threat to national security, the U.S. government was illegally stopping the New York Times from printing which was in turn, infringing on their constitutional right. The Government, however, saw this case in a completely light. They felt that absolute freedom of the press is nowhere guaranteed in the constitution, especially when national security is involved. The side of the U.S. was attempting to show the justices that a balance has to be made between freedom of press and the safety of the nation. Another argument made by the Government was that by allowing the publication of these articles could set a dangerous precedent for future cases that involve the same issue. The case went down to the wire, with both sides making fair and logical

points.
The court ruled with a majority opinion of 6-3 in favor of the New York Times. The justices felt that even though the “New York Times had probably gone too far in printing the Pentagon Papers,” there is “nothing in the law to prevent the newspaper from doing so.” Though the court ruled in favor of the Times, the justices did feel like the lines must become less blurred. Chief Justice Warren Burger elaborated on the complexity of cases such as these: “Only those who view the First Amendment as an absolute in all circumstances--a view I respect, but reject-- can find such cases as these to be simple or easy.” After the verdict was read, the Nixon administration decided to indict Ellsberg and a supposed accomplice con criminal charges that included: conspiracy, espionage, and stealing government property. These charges were dismissed after prosecutors discovered that a secret white house team had broken into the office of Ellsberg's psychiatrist to find information that would discredit him.