New York Times Co. v.s. United States. It’s a landmark Supreme Court case that deals with the First Amendment and the freedom of the press. But, at least to me, there’s a second layer to that case – one that deals with government transparency and accountability.

You might know the New York Times v.s. U.S. case better by the documents it deals with: the Pentagon Papers. The Pentagon Papers were a set of documents, or rather a report, commissioned by the then-secretary of defense regarding the Vietnam War. In 1971, a portion of these papers were leaked to various newspapers, including the Times and Washington Post. Both papers published stories that dealt with the information from the Pentagon Papers, causing the government to sue them (separately) on the basis of prior restraint of the press.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the newspapers, stating that the federal government had no right to censor the press or demand prior restraint since the First Amendment was absolute in its protections of a free press and there were no pressing national security threats or concerns stemming from the publication of these papers that would merit such a severe departure from the Constitution.

What’s interesting about the case – at least in terms of today’s article – is the institutionalized reluctance of the government to be transparent and accountable in its actions.

For all intents and purposes, the government’s motivation in pushing for the censorship of the Pentagon Papers was clear. The Vietnam War was a highly, highly unpopular war, as evidenced by the countless protests that unfolded stateside, and the information in the Pentagon Papers heightened this domestic discontent and resentment that was born out of the extensive U.S. involvement in the war.

And so it begs the question, why would the government take action that it knew would be unpopular, that it knew would inflame tensions, when people were already so upset about the war? Why would the government actively work against public opinion to such a degree that it would then have to classify those actions and work to prevent them from being publicly known?

The purpose of government is to execute the will of the people. It is an instrument to be wielded and shaped by the public, not one that wields the public to achieve its own ends – in large part because those “ends” should be the same goals that the public seeks to achieve, not something discrete.

Events like the ones that spurred the New York Times v.s. U.S. case should be cause for extreme concern. They reflect a government that not only refuses to be transparent, but also one that actively works against the will of the public, taking military action and conscripting soldiers into an undeclared war in blatant defiance of what Americans at the time wanted. 

But the scariest part of it all is that it’s a government that we chose of our free will. It’s built of men and women whom we voluntarily elected and we placed in positions of power. 

A transparent government, one that admits that there’s More to the Story and is willing to share that story, is an accountable government. And accountability in a government is everything in ensuring that the will of the people is truthfully and honestly executed.