The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewAndrew Napolitano Archive
Can the Media Reveal Stolen Truths?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

It seems that at every turn during this crazy presidential election campaign — with its deeply flawed principal candidates (whom do you hate less?) — someone’s personal or professional computer records are being hacked. First it was Hillary Clinton’s emails that she had failed to surrender to the State Department. Then it was a portion of Donald Trump’s 1995 tax returns, showing a $916 million loss he claimed during boom times. Then it was those Clinton emails again, this time showing her unacted-upon doubts about two of our Middle Eastern allies’ involvement in 9/11 and her revelation of some secrets about the killing of Osama bin Laden.

The reason we know about these leaks is the common thread among them — the willingness of the media to publish what was apparently stolen. Hence the question: Can the government hold the press liable — criminally or civilly — for the publication of known stolen materials that the public wants to know about? In a word: No.

Here is the back story.

When Daniel Ellsberg, an outside contractor working in the Pentagon, stole a secret study of U.S. military involvement in Vietnam in 1971, which revealed that President Lyndon Johnson had lied repeatedly to the public about what his military advisers had told him, the Department of Justice secured an injunction from U.S. District Judge Murray Gurfein, sitting in Manhattan, barring The New York Times from publishing what Ellsberg had turned over to Times reporters. Such an injunction, known as a “prior restraint,” is exceedingly rare in American legal history.

This is so largely because of the sweeping language of the First Amendment — “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press” — as well as the values that underlie this language. Those values are the government’s legal obligation to be accountable to the public and the benefits to freedom of open, wide, robust debate about the government — debate that is informed by truthful knowledge of what the government has been doing.
Those underlying values spring from the Framers’ recognition of the natural right to speak freely. The freedom of speech and of the press had been assaulted by the king during the Colonial era, and the Framers wrote a clear, direct prohibition of such assaults in the initial amendment of the new Constitution.

Notwithstanding the First Amendment, Judge Gurfein accepted the government’s argument and found that palpable, grave and immediate danger would come to national security if the Times were permitted to publish what Ellsberg had delivered.

The Times appealed Judge Gurfein’s injunction, and that appeal made its way to the Supreme Court. In a case that has come to be known as the Pentagon Papers case, the high court ruled that when the media obtains truthful documents that are of material interest to the public, the media is free to publish those documents, as well as commentary about them, without fear of criminal or civil liability.


The government had argued to the Supreme Court — seriously — that “‘no law’ does not mean ‘no law’” when national security is at stake. Fortunately for human freedom and for the concept that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and means what it says, the court rejected that argument. It also rejected the government’s suggested methodology.

The government argued that because Congress and the president had agreed to void a constitutional mandate — the First Amendment’s “no law” language — in deference to national security, the judiciary should follow. That methodology would have rejected 180 years of constitutional jurisprudence that taught that the whole purpose of an independent judiciary is to say what the Constitution and the laws mean, notwithstanding what Congress and the president want. Were that not so, the courts would be rubber stamps.

Moreover, the high court ruled, it matters not how the documents came into the possession of the media. The thief can always be prosecuted, as Ellsberg was, but not the media to which the thief delivers what he has stolen. In Ellsberg’s case, the charges against him were eventually dismissed because of FBI misconduct in pursuit of him — misconduct that infamously involved breaking in to his psychiatrist’s office looking for dirt on him.

Since that case, the federal courts have uniformly followed the Pentagon Papers rule. Hence, much to the chagrin of the Obama administration, the media was free to publish Edward Snowden’s revelations about the ubiquitous and unconstitutional nature of government spying on Americans by the National Security Agency. The same is true for Trump’s tax returns and Clinton’s emails.

Are these matters material to the public interest?

Of course they are. In a free society — one in which we do not need a government permission slip to exercise our natural rights — all people enjoy a right to know if the government is spying on us in violation of the constitutionally protected and natural right to privacy. We also have a right to know about the financial shenanigans or uprightness and the honesty or dishonesty of those who seek the highest office in the land. That is particularly so in the 2016 campaign, in which Trump has argued that his business acumen makes him uniquely qualified to be president and Clinton has offered that her experiences as secretary of state would bring a unique asset to the Oval Office.

Efforts to silence the press or to punish it when it publishes inconvenient truths about the government or those who seek to lead it are not new, and the vigilance of the courts has been unabated. Thomas Jefferson — himself the victim of painful press publications — argued that in a free society, he’d prefer newspapers without a government to a government without newspapers. Would Clinton or Trump say that today?

Copyright 2016 Andrew P. Napolitano. Distributed by

• Category: Ideology • Tags: 2016 Election, American Media 
Hide 4 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. D. K. says:

    Judge Napolitano, being a dogmatically principled Libertarian ideologue, obviously cannot imagine that any thinking person could NOT hate both Mrs. Clinton (who, if she wins, likely will revert, at once, to being known as “Ms. Rodham”) and Mr. Trump– because Judge Napolitano, his devout, old-style Roman Catholicism notwithstanding, surely does HATE them both! Well, I have news for him: (a) human beings are not a species of rational beings; we merely are evolved animals that are capable of some degree of rational thought; and, (b) scores of millions of voters, each of whom is a thinking person, whether to a greater or lesser extent, support their respective candidate without any such trace of hatred toward him or her in their hearts. Try attending a Trump rally, in the weeks still remaining before the general election, Judge Napolitano, and then try telling yourself that those thousands of hyper-enthusiastic Trump voters merely HATE him less than they hate Mrs. Clinton / Ms. Rodham. Likewise for the exponentially smaller number of Hillary Clinton voters that show up at her occasional rallies, while she concentrates upon conspiring with the Establishment propaganda media (EPM), and even with prominent elements of the Republican establishment itself, like Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, to rig the upcoming presidential election in her (and their) favor.

    Read More
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. My dear Judge Napolitano, how about penning an essay that will decry the growing numbers of college internet services that block faculty & students from visiting websites that the Ruling Class Globali$t $ellout E$tabli$hment regards as dissenting against the Approved E$tabli$hment $ellout America & Americans Orthodoxy? If that’s not a widespread of instances of Leftist-cum-Regime Neo-Nazi book burning, then what else would it be?

    Why no mention of the hacking of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management that stole the personal private information – including Social Security numbers and even the fingerprints – of millions of ordinary Americans?

    Why no mention of the Government’s recent handing of ICANN internet domain management to an international cabal? – as if that clever move will not menace Americans, will not menace national security, will not menace Americans’ private personal “in their persons, houses, papers, and effects” security, and will not menace free access to information.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. Bozo says:

    Judge Napolitano: Do you hold that everyone’s tax returns are legally publishable? Or do presidential candidates constitute a special class?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Connecticut Famer
    Which begs the question why should politicians be compelled to release their tax returns in the first place?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. @Bozo
    Judge Napolitano: Do you hold that everyone's tax returns are legally publishable? Or do presidential candidates constitute a special class?

    Which begs the question why should politicians be compelled to release their tax returns in the first place?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Andrew Napolitano Comments via RSS
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
Talk TV sensationalists and axe-grinding ideologues have fallen for a myth of immigrant lawlessness.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?