THE WAY THE PRESS SAW IT
THE WAY THE PRESS SAW IT In its May issue, The Progressive printed a sampling of initial press reaction to the case of The United States vs. The Progressive et. al. Here is a sampling of more...
...There can be no compromising the First Amendment or any other aspect of our freedoms on which our country is built...
...The Miami Herald Censorship won't work We have a better chance of averting nuclear annihilation by stopping the worldwide proliferation of those materials, such as the byproducts of nuclear power plants, that are necessary ingredients for atomic bombs...
...The Hartford Courant It's too late Perhaps someone should inform the Government that the "secret" is already out...
...It might also help to put a stop to the insane arms race we're caught in...
...The Washington Post A greater damage Many in the press beg The Progressive to desist voluntarily, not to force the issue to the Supreme Court...
...But the threat of thermonuclear annihilation assuredly won't be alleviated by censoring the press...
...we still say it would be a good idea for The Progressive to cut its losses, rather than push a case that could convert an ill-advised district court injunction into an oppressive precedent for the whole country...
...That would not only prevent the establishment of a worse legal precedent than already exists, but it would also permit the magazine to make one of the key points its editor has in mind...
...We suspect, however, that neither publication nor non-publication will affect the spread of nuclear weapon technology one iota...
...The Progressive wanted to demonstrate that many government secrets aren't really secrets if you know to look for them in unclassified places...
...Yale Daily News Wrong case at the wrong time...
...Unfortunately, by unwisely submitting its article to a Government agency prior to publication The Progressive has risked setting a dangerous legal precedent...
...They fear that this court will rule against The Progressive and the First Amendment will have suffered irreparable harm...
...The Valley News, Lebanon, New Hampshire Moot the question We agree with a suggestion that has been made that Morland and The Progressive negotiate a settlement with the Government whereby they publish a revised version of the article, leaving out the technical information the Government objects to...
...Constitution...
...Be hut (Wisconsin) Daily News A dangerous precedent So it is nuclear materials, not the flow of information, that must be restricted...
...Los Angeles Times There can he no compromise We don't see how The Progressive can lose its case without all of us feeling the defeat...
...The Philadelphia Inquirer Time for a settlement In this situation, the First Amendment would be best served by a negotiated settlement under which The Progressive publishes a revised version of its article, leaving out the details to which the Government objects...
...Albuquerque (New Mexico) Journal...
...Who controls information controls the very terms of public discussion...
...The Milwaukee Journal Weak, pathetic, dangerous We trust higher courts will see Judge Warren's train of logic as we do — weak, pathetic and dangerous to the Republic, which if it stands for anything, stands for free thought, free speech and a free press...
...The Daily Messenger, Canandaigua, New York It makes no difference Since we have not read The Progressive article, we cannot say if we would or would not publish it...
...Here is a sampling of more recent editorial opinion: The right to know The issue is the right of a free people to know and to discuss and to make decisions on the issues that affect their lives...
...Hawk Eye, Burlington, Iowa Better to finesse We wish that the case had been finessed, because we don't like the precedent of this preliminary injunction, and because we are worried that higher courts might expand the precedent...
...That is more dangerous to the survival of American liberty than all the H-bombs on Earth...
...By objecting so violently to the publication of this article, the Government has made The Progressive's point for it...
...And the record of Government officials in suppressing information on "national security" grounds is not such as to give confidence that they can be trusted to safeguard citizens from knowing too much...
...Seattle Post-Intelligencer A tortured interpretation The threat to the public comes not from publication of the article — existence of the bomb already takes care of that — but from the Justice Department's and Judge Warren's tortured interpretation of the law and the U.S...
...But the First Amendment will have been damaged as much by retreat out of fear of what the court might say, as it will be by what the court does say...
...As for the Carter administration, it should be ashamed...
...If the Supreme Court winds up agreeing with Judge Warren, it would be tantamount to saying that the Government has the right to determine what its people can know...
...This would effectively moot the difficult First Amendment question raised by this case____ — The Albuquerque (New Mexico) Tribune fudge drops a bomb By becoming the first jurist ever to grant an injunction to silence an American publication for reasons of "national security," Federal Judge Robert Warren of Milwaukee has posed a threat to our freedom that is more serious than any external one...
Vol. 43 • June 1979 • No. 6
