The freedom of the press is for the governed, not the government. A concept that is reaffirmed in the movie “The Post," and although takes place in early 1970s, is a concept that is applicable in today’s America. Set during Richard Nixon’s presidency, the plot of the movie is based on the release of the Pentagon Papers.

These papers contained information about the Vietnam War and revealed that one of the reasons that America was continuing in the war was because we didn’t want to surrender, and that it was a hopeless cause. The study that was done on the war was done at the instruction of the Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara. Throughout the movie, you are able to watch as his reputation meets its demise.

The movie focuses on this conflict that is centered on how much the American public should know about the government. Starting in the "New York Times,” the study begins to be published and this idea that the U.S. was only continuing in the war to preserve their reputation starts to resonate with the public. Eventually, the Times is on the brink of being sued by the government, because according to them they were breaching government security.

So, the “Washington Post” now has the opportunity to continue publishing the papers, a decision which editor in chief, Katharine Graham struggles with but eventually goes through with. This move turns the paper from a smaller news source to one that really changes the course of the newspaper’s future.

The "Washington Post” receives a similar call from the government stating that they will be sued if they continue to publish, which they disregard. In the end the case goes the Supreme Court in a case titled New York Times Co. v. United States; United States v. Washington Post Co. The court rules in favor of the press in a 6-3 decision. Although the court rules in favor of the newspapers, the question of “how much should the American people know?” is something that is being asked constantly.

This question was brought into play again after former CIA member, Edward Snowden copied NSA documents to release to the public. These documents contained information about how the American people were being phone tapped and constantly watched by the government. The information he was able to collect was eventually published in the "Guardian” and the "Washington Post.”

In answering my previously posed question, I also struggle with coming up with a response of how much should we know as citizens. But overall, my thoughts generally are in line with the idea that if the government is withholding things that would change the mindset of the country drastically, that they should be exposed.

The rights stated in the first amendment can be interpreted to different extents of the spectrum, and are rights that are constantly argued over.

“Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.” — Thomas Jefferson

Freedom of the press is the very backbone of this great country in my opinion. It’s how we as citizens receive information about things that could either make us very happy or very upset. How are we able to form views if information about the government is withheld from us?