macmillan Publishers Message frem Jehn Sargent: Fire and Fury Last ThursdayI shertty after Till] a.m.I we received a demand frem the Presidentef the United States te ?immediately cease and desist frem any further publicatien. release er disseminatien" ef lvlichael Fire and Fury. Dn Thursday aftemeen we respended with a shert statement saying that we weuld publish the beelrI and we meved the pub date ferward te the nerrt day. Later teday we will send eur legal respense te President Trump. Dur respense is ?rmwriting yeu teday te explain why this is a matteref great impertance. It is abeut much mere than Fire and Fury. The president is free te call news "fake" and te blast the media. That gees against eenventien. but it is net uneen stitutienal. But a demand te cease and desist pu blicatien?a clear effert by the President ef the United States te intimidate a publisher inte halting publicatien ef an impertant beelc en the weridngs ef the gevemment?is an attemptte achieve what is called prier restraint. That is semething that ne Amen'can ceurt weuld erder as it is flagrantly uneenstitutien al. This is very clearly de?ned in Supreme Ceurt case law. mest preminently in the Pentagen Papers case. As .lustiee Huge Black explained in his cencu rrence: "Beth the histery and language ef the First Amendment suppert the view that the press must be left free te publish news. whatever the seuree. witheut eensership. injunctiensI er pn'er restraints. In the First Amendment. the Feunding Fathers gave the free press the pretectien it must have te ful?ll its essential rele in eur demecracy. The press was te serve the gevemed. net the gevemers. The Gevemment's pewer te censer the press was abelished se that the press weuld remain ferever free te censure the Gevemm ent." Then there is .Justiee William Brennan's epinierr in The New ?r?enlr Times Ce. v. Sullivan: "Thus we eensid er this case against the backgreund ef a prefeund natienal eemmitment te the principle that debate en public issues sheuld be uninhibited. rebust and wide?epen. and that it may well include vehement. caustic. and semetimes unpleasantly sharp attacks err gevemment and public ef?eials." And ?nally Chief Justice Warren Burger in anether landmark case: "The thread running threugh all these cases is that pn'er restraints en speech and publicatien are the mest sen'eus and least telerable infringement en First Amendment rights.? There is he ambiguity here. This is an underlying principle ef eur demecracy. We can net stand silent. We will net allew any president te achieve by intimid atien what eur Gen stitutien precludes him er her frem achieving in ceu rt. We need te respend strengly fer Michael Welff and his beelrI but alse fer all authers and all their bee-itsI new and in the future. And as citizens we must demand that President Trump understand and abide by the First Amendment ef eur Censtitutien. -Jehn