The way the public found out about the terrorist attacks was through the many sources of media. Whether it was the radio, television, or newspaper these events were thoroughly outlined with every detail described in these media outlets. Across all these news sources there was information that was accurate and important for the public to know, but at the same time there was an overabundance of information that may not have been as important for the public to hear. Though I do think that some information is not as helpful for the public to hear, I do not think that the U.S. government should be able to block the publication of material.
By not being able to censor what the media submits to the public, there holds a risk for government because they cannot block information that may hurt national security. However, there can be exceptions to this such as in the case Near v. Minnesota where the government can use prior restraint in times where there is great threat to national security. This allows for the best of both scenarios, it allows journalists to write freely without putting him or herself or national security in danger.
This is very important in a time of war because there is already an already created threat. This is where the clear and present danger test is important to keep the regulation of safety. By having this in place it creates guidelines to follow that allows freedom of speech to happen in a way that is not harmful. This is true of other regulations put on the media such as censorship of indecent speech or obscenity. Using these guidelines people can say what they need and want to say in a way that is not harmful to the people listening.
It may seem like parts of the first amendment cannot be upheld with the laws and regulations put on media today however I do not feel this is true. At the center of these regulations the first amendment is being taken into account. In most cases the freedom to say what you want still holds there are just more appropriate ways of conveying the same message.