Discussions and Replies: COMM LAW
Discussion #1 : New York Times v. United States Part 1 Summary
In 1971, the Pentagon Papers— a secret government study about the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War— were leaked, and The New York Times and The Washington Post tried to publish them. The government pushed back, claiming it would hurt national security and put U.S. troops at risk. But the Supreme Court ruled that stopping the press from publishing, also known as prior restraint, was mostly unconstitutional unless it involved extreme cases like obscenity or encouraging violence (Ross, Reynolds, & Trager, 2021, p. 60). This decision was a big win for press freedom and allowed journalists to report more openly on what was really happening during the war. I don’t agree with Justice Harlan’s objection to the Court’s decision or how long it took to reach a ruling. Looking back more than 50 years later, there’s still no real evidence that the publication caused any harm. The real issue wasn’t the reporters—it was President Nixon, who ended up resigning after more of his questionable actions came to light. This moment in history showed just how important it is for the media to hold those in power accountable.
Discussion #2 : New York Times v. United States Part 2 Summary
If I were the editor of The New York Times back when the Pentagon Papers came out, I definitely would’ve published them. The First Amendment gives people the right to express themselves without fear of censorship (Ross, Reynolds, & Trager, 2021, p. 72), and the information in those documents didn’t actually pose a real threat to national security. A lot of times, governments try to keep things hidden not to protect the public, but to protect themselves. I’ve come to really respect the risks journalists take to uncover the truth, especially when powerful institutions try to keep it buried.
When it comes to prior restraint, I think it depends on the situation:
-
Flag-draped coffins being shown on TV? I don’t think that should be censored. It’s a powerful and respectful image that honors those who’ve died in service—not something meant to cause harm (Ross et al., 2021, p. 100).
-
A magazine showing a wounded soldier? I don’t see an issue with that either. Stories like these bring attention to what veterans go through, especially since many end up homeless (“Veteran Homelessness,” n.d.). It’s important storytelling, not a security threat.
-
Publishing a city’s emergency response to a terrorist attack? That’s where I draw the line. Sharing those details could actually put people in danger. That info should stay private, especially if it’s part of a secure, nonpublic government plan (Ross et al., 2021, p. 74).
-
A map showing American troop positions in Iraq? Definitely not okay to publish. That could seriously endanger lives and military operations. With today’s tech, enemies could easily use that info against us, so prior restraint makes sense in this case.
Bottom line: freedom of the press is super important, but so is public safety—it's all about finding the right balance.
Combined Summary Post #3
From what I’ve gathered, the Pentagon Papers were a classified government study on the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. When The New York Times and The Washington Post attempted to publish excerpts, the government tried to prevent it, claiming the release could threaten national security. However, in 1971, the Supreme Court ruled that prior restraint in this situation was unconstitutional. The Court emphasized that censorship before publication is only allowed in very rare and extreme circumstances, like inciting violence or revealing sensitive military strategies.
Personally, I agree with the Court’s decision. Looking back more than 50 years later, there’s still no solid evidence that publishing the Pentagon Papers caused any actual harm. I don’t think it was journalists trying to mislead the public—it was government officials, including President Nixon, who were trying to cover things up. If I were the editor of The New York Times at the time, I would’ve made the same decision to publish. The public had a right to know what was really going on, especially during a controversial war.
As for more modern examples of prior restraint, I think it really depends on the situation. Showing flag-draped coffins or interviewing wounded soldiers shouldn't be censored—they're emotional and important stories that deserve to be told. But if a news outlet were about to reveal American troop locations or detailed emergency response plans for a terrorist attack, I could see why that might justify prior restraint. In those cases, the risk to public safety would outweigh the public’s right to know.
Discussion 4: Social Media Privacy Summary
When we agree to the terms of service on apps like Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube, we're giving them access to a ton of personal data, like our location, browsing history, and who we interact with. Most of us don’t read the fine print (myself included), but there’s a lot of info hidden in there. For instance, Facebook can track your activity across other sites, even if you're not logged in.
To protect your privacy, adjusting your settings can help a lot. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has a guide that shows how to turn off things like location tracking and ad targeting. Mozilla also offers a tool to help you understand what data apps collect.
We have to be careful about what we share online since it’s hard to fully erase once it’s out there. Even if we delete something, it might have already been saved or shared by someone else. The FTC can step in if companies lie about privacy policies or misuse data, but ultimately, it’s up to us to stay aware and adjust our settings to protect ourselves.
Banned Voices: How Book Bans Targeting Black Authors Reflect Policy Violence and Racial Censorship
Recent book bans have disproportionately targeted works by African American authors, including classics like Beloved by Toni Morrison and contemporary young adult novels like The Hate U Give by Angie Thomas. These bans are more than isolated incidents of censorship; they reflect broader cultural and political efforts to suppress narratives on systemic racism and Black identity. Often enacted by local school boards under vague premises such as protecting children or avoiding discomfort, these bans challenge First Amendment protections while contributing to what the NAACP terms "policy violence" against marginalized communities (NAACP, 2023). This paper explores the legal and policy dimensions of book banning, highlights the racial implications of this form of censorship, and argues for national guidelines that safeguard the inclusion of diverse perspectives in educational curricula.
Book bans are not new to American education, but their recent surge has taken a pointed focus on authors of color and themes of racial justice. According to PEN America (2025), over 3,000 instances of book banning have been recorded across U.S. schools in the past year alone, with a significant portion involving books by Black authors or those addressing race. Titles like The Bluest Eye, Stamped, and All American Boys have been removed from school libraries and curricula. This pattern reveals a systemic attempt to silence discussions that challenge dominant historical narratives and question existing power structures (Temple University, 2024).
The basis for many of these bans is often cited with claims of age-inappropriateness or sexually explicit content. However, such criteria are inconsistently applied and frequently weaponized against narratives centered on Black lived experiences. The NAACP (2023) argues that these bans represent a form of policy violence: administrative decisions that, though not physically harmful, inflict psychological and educational damage on marginalized communities. By removing books that provide cultural affirmation and historical truth, schools strip Black students of meaningful engagement with literature that reflects their identities and histories.
The policy violence inherent in these bans does not occur in a vacuum. It coincides with broader cultural battles over what constitutes appropriate education and whose histories deserve acknowledgment. Many of the banned books are those that provide students with a lens into the lived realities of Black Americans—histories often omitted or distorted in mainstream curricula. These books offer critical insight into the systemic barriers that continue to impact Black communities, including police brutality, generational trauma, and economic disenfranchisement. Silencing these narratives undermines educational equity and reinforces societal structures of white supremacy.
From a legal standpoint, the tension between First Amendment protections and local control over education complicates the fight against book bans. While the U.S. Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) upheld students' rights to free expression, later cases such as Board of Education v. Pico (1982) allowed school boards some discretion over library content. This has created a legal gray area where book removal can occur under the guise of curriculum management. As highlighted by Columbia University (2023), this ambiguity enables politically motivated censorship, often driven by small but vocal parent groups or ideologically influenced school boards.
In many cases, these book bans reflect a deliberate attempt to control the narrative and suppress dissenting voices. The implication is clear: literature that explores systemic racism or centers the experiences of Black people is considered too controversial or inappropriate for students. This not only violates the principles of academic freedom but also sends a harmful message to Black students—that their stories, histories, and realities do not belong in the classroom. This erasure can have lasting impacts, contributing to lower self-esteem, reduced academic engagement, and feelings of alienation among marginalized students.
The consequences of these bans are felt beyond the classroom. As educators and scholars have pointed out, denying students access to diverse literature stifles critical thinking and limits their ability to engage with complex social issues. Books like The Hate U Give by Angie Thomas and Beloved by Toni Morrison are not merely stories; they are pedagogical tools that encourage empathy, historical understanding, and civic engagement. Their removal represents a fundamental failure of the education system to prepare students for participation in a diverse and democratic society.
Resistance to these bans is growing. Educators, librarians, and students are increasingly speaking out against censorship. Harvard's Ed Magazine (2023) profiled several librarians who have risked job security to retain access to banned books. Meanwhile, students across the country have organized walkouts, reading clubs, and advocacy campaigns to highlight the importance of diverse literature. These acts of defiance demonstrate the resilience of communities who understand that education must be inclusive to be effective.
Organizations like the NAACP and PEN America have also been instrumental in raising awareness and challenging the legality of book bans. Through legal action, public campaigns, and grassroots organizing, these groups are working to protect students' right to read and to preserve the integrity of public education. Their efforts underscore the importance of collective resistance in the face of institutionalized censorship and racial injustice (PEN America, 2025). Similarly, Noname Book Club—a Black-owned business founded in 2019—has emerged as a powerful example of community-led resistance to censorship and educational inequity. Dedicated to connecting people inside and outside of carceral facilities with radical literature by Black authors, Noname Book Club operates 20 domestic chapters and 4 international ones. Since 2021, they have expanded efforts to send books to 1,500 incarcerated members and opened the Radical Hood Library, a free community space for political education. By providing access to revolutionary texts and promoting collective literacy, Noname Book Club exemplifies how grassroots movements can challenge systemic barriers and uplift marginalized voices through the power of books (Noname Book Club, 2025).
To counter the spread of racially motivated book bans, national standards must be implemented. These guidelines should affirm the importance of diversity in educational materials and limit the ability of individual school boards to censor literature based on ideological grounds. Policies must be created with the input of educators, students, and marginalized communities to ensure that curricula reflect a full and honest account of history and identity in America.
Moreover, professional development for educators should include training on how to navigate controversial materials and foster inclusive classroom discussions. Rather than avoiding difficult topics, schools should equip teachers with the tools to engage students in meaningful conversations about race, history, and identity. This approach not only enriches the educational experience but also helps build a more just and equitable society.
Ultimately, the fight against book bans is a fight for the soul of public education. It is a struggle to ensure that all students—regardless of race, background, or belief—have access to the full spectrum of human experience through literature. Censorship, especially when rooted in racial bias, has no place in schools committed to truth, justice, and equity. By advocating for inclusive policies, supporting educators and librarians, and elevating the voices of Black authors, we can resist the forces of censorship and affirm the power of diverse storytelling in shaping a more informed and empathetic society.
In conclusion, book bans that target Black authors are not neutral administrative decisions but acts of policy violence that marginalize students and silence critical narratives. These bans pose a threat to both First Amendment rights and educational equity. By understanding the racial and legal dimensions of this censorship, the public can advocate for inclusive policies that protect the voices of Black authors and ensure that all students have access to literature that reflects the richness of American experience.
‘
References
Big Bend Community College. (2024). Black Authors are Being Banned: What Should We Do About It? Retrieved from https://libguides.bigbend.edu/blog/Black-History-Month-2024-Black-Authors-are-Being-Banned-What-Should-We-Do-About-It
Columbia University, Teachers College. (2023). What You Need to Know About the Book Bans Sweeping the U.S. Retrieved from https://www.tc.columbia.edu/articles/2023/september/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-book-bans-sweeping-the-us/
Harvard Graduate School of Education. (2023). Book Bans and the Librarians Who Won’t Be Hushed. Retrieved from https://www.gse.harvard.edu/ideas/ed-magazine/23/11/book-bans-and-librarians-who-wont-be-hushed
NAACP. (2023). Book Bans Act as Policy Violence Promoting Anti-Blackness. Retrieved from https://naacp.org/articles/book-bans-act-policy-violence-promoting-anti-blackness
PEN America. (2025). Banned Books List 2025. Retrieved from https://pen.org/banned-books-list-2025/
Read Cultured. (2023). Why Black Authors Should Keep Writing Books That White People Ban. Retrieved from https://readcultured.com/why-black-authors-should-keep-writing-books-that-white-people-ban-62671fcd3b5a
Temple University. (2024). Temple Owls Lead Fight Against Banning Books by Black Authors. Retrieved from https://news.temple.edu/news/2024-02-21/temple-owls-lead-fight-against-banning-books-black-authors
Noname Book Club. (2025). About Us. Retrieved from https://www.nonamebooks.com
