I can tell you, having been in court today in New York, that the requests for the video outtakes have been dropped.

I can tell you, having been in court today in New York, that the requests for the video outtakes have been dropped.

I thought that one of the things that we were losing sight of is the basic reasons that we do protect free speech and freedom of the press and the essentiality and centrality in our lives of really giving broad protection to freedom of speech and freedom of the press in America. I thought I could do that by telling stories of some of the cases that established those principles on a real life on the ground basis.

I would say that the Pentagon Papers case of 1971 - in which the government tried to block the 'The New York Times' and 'The Washington Post' and other newspapers from publishing papers that they obtained from a secret study of how we got involved in the war in Vietnam - that is probably the most important case.

It is within the last quarter century or thirty years. And a lot of that law has turned out to be very, very protective of the press and the public's right to know.

So sometimes the facts are good and sometimes the facts are bad, the important thing from the point of view of a principle as broad and important as freedom of speech is that the courts articulate and set forth in a very protective way what those principles are.

It's not like learning how to hit a curve ball in baseball.