Me i will give brainlest!
scenario 3

federal law requires that news agencies not publish or broadcast information that could threaten the security of the nation's armed forces in times of conflict. however, the constitution protects the right to free expression of ideas. judges use past decisions on cases where the law and rights come into conflict to settle similar disputes. in one case, new york times vs. united states, the supreme court decided that a newspaper could publish information about the military that the president said should remain secret to protect the troops. the justices said the president failed to prove that the information could threaten the nation's security.

federal officials accuse an online newspaper of violating the law against publishing secret information about the military. one of the newspaper's reporters posted comments online about her friend, who is a soldier serving overseas. on her personal website, she posted a picture of him, where he is stationed, and negative opinions of his commanders, including the president. the newspaper insists that the reporter did this on her own time and that the newspaper is not responsible. the reporter maintains that whether at work or not, she has the right to express her opinions freely under the constitution.

u. s. government officials say that the posting of the information could put the soldier in harm's way. officials also say that her negative opinions could encourage others to stop supporting the soldiers and break laws in protest. they insist that because a reporter for the newspaper, people could believe that her ideas are those of everyone working for the newspaper. they say the newspaper and the reporter have threatened the safety and security of the armed forces.

is this a matter of constitutional, criminal, civil, or military law? how do you know?

is the source of the law a statute, regulation, case law, or a combination? how do you know?

determine the purpose of the law related to the scenario. is the law intended to protect people's safety or people's rights? explain your response and thoughts on what could happen if the law did not exist. use details from the scenario to support your answer.





do you think the reporter has a valid argument? in other words, should government change the law or make an exception? use details from the scenario to support your answer.