ArticleslgStudy

physics

United States v. Progressive, Inc.

United States v. Progressive, Inc. is a physics topic covered in the lgStudy science library. This page brings together a partial reference excerpt, illustrations, worked examples, real-world applications and a short study plan, so you can understand United States v. Progressive, Inc. rather than just read about it. In short: § United States of America v. Progressive, Inc., Erwin Knoll, Samuel Day, Jr., and Howard Morland, 467 F.

United States v. Progressive, Inc. — main illustration
United States v. Progressive, Inc. — illustration

Key takeaways

  • United States v. Progressive, Inc. belongs to physics; place it in that map before memorising details.
  • Learn the definition first, then one example that makes the definition concrete.
  • Connect United States v. Progressive, Inc. to a quantity you can measure, compute or draw — that is where exam questions come from.
  • Reproduce the core statement of United States v. Progressive, Inc. from memory before moving on to harder problems.

Reference excerpt

§

United States of America v. Progressive, Inc., Erwin Knoll, Samuel Day, Jr., and Howard Morland, 467 F. Supp. 990 (W.D. Wis. 1979), was a lawsuit brought against The Progressive magazine by the United States Department of Energy (DOE) in 1979. A temporary injunction was granted against The Progressive to prevent the publication of an article written by activist Howard Morland that purported to reveal the "secret" of the hydrogen bomb. Though the information had been compiled from publicly available sources, the DOE claimed that it fell under the "born secret" clause of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Although the case was filed in the Western District of Wisconsin, the judge there recused himself as a friend of the magazine. The case was therefore brought before Judge Robert W. Warren, a judge in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Because of the sensitive nature of information at stake in the trial, two separate hearings were conducted, one in public, and the other in camera. The defendants, Morland and the editors of The Progressive, would not accept security clearances, as they would have had to sign non-disclosure agreements that would have put restraints on their free speech (including, significantly, in written form), and so were not present at the in camera hearings. Their lawyers obtained clearances so that they could participate, but were forbidden from conveying anything they heard to their clients. The article was eventually published after the government lawyers dropped their case during the appeals process, calling it moot after other information was independently published. Despite its indecisive conclusion, law students still study the case, which "could have been a law school hypothetical designed to test the limits of the presumption of unconstitutionality attached to prior restraints".

Background

Secrecy and disclosure The first atomic bombs were developed by the wartime Manhattan Project. This was carried out in secret, lest its discovery induce the Axis powers, particularly Germany, to accelerate their own nuclear projects, or undertake covert operations against the project. The military and scientific leaders of the Manhattan Project anticipated a need to release details of their wartime accomplishments, principally as a form of recognition for the participants who had labored in secrecy. Press releases were prepared in advance of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and an official account, known as the Smyth Report after its author, the physicist Henry DeWolf Smyth, was commissioned in April 1944 to provide a history of the project for public release. The Director of the Manhattan Project, Major General Leslie Groves, his scientific adviser, Richard Tolman, and Smyth agreed that information could be publicly released if it was essential for an understanding of the project, or was already generally known or deducible, or had no significance to the production of atomic bombs. The first copies went on sale on August 12, 1945. In its October 8, 1945, issue, The New Republic took the position, emphasized with italics, that "there is no secret to be kept": the knowledge of how to build an atomic bomb had been "the common property of scientists throughout the world for the last five years". President Harry S. Truman took a similar line in his first speech to Congress on nuclear matters that month, proclaiming that "the essential theoretical knowledge upon which the discovery is based is already widely known." In November 1945, Groves instructed Tolman to draw up a policy for the declassification of the Manhattan Project's documents. Tolman assembled a committee, which took a list of the Manhattan Project's activities and assigned each a classification. Four reviewers assessed the documents and declassified about 500 of them by the end of the year.

Atomic Energy Act

… excerpt ends here. Continue reading the full article.

Illustrations

United States v. Progressive, Inc. illustration
United States v. Progressive, Inc.: President Harry S. Truman signs the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 establishing the United States Atomic Energy Commission
President Harry S. Truman signs the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 establishing the United States Atomic Energy Commission
United States v. Progressive, Inc.: Howard Morland in 2008
Howard Morland in 2008
United States v. Progressive, Inc.: The cover of the November 1979 issue of The Progressive, which the United States Department of Energy attempted to censor
The cover of the November 1979 issue of The Progressive, which the United States Department of Energy attempted to censor

Worked examples

Example 1 — a first encounter with United States v. Progressive, Inc.

Start with the simplest possible case. Write down what United States v. Progressive, Inc. claims or describes in one sentence, then invent the smallest concrete situation in which that sentence is true. In physics, the smallest case is usually a single object, a single equation or a single measurement. Check that every symbol or term in your sentence has a meaning in that case.

Example 2 — changing one variable

Take the situation from Example 1 and change exactly one quantity: double it, halve it, or set it to zero. Predict what should happen to United States v. Progressive, Inc. before you calculate. Comparing your prediction with the result is the fastest way to find out whether you understand the idea or only the words.

Example 3 — an exam-style question

Typical questions about United States v. Progressive, Inc. ask you to (a) state it precisely, (b) apply it to given data, and (c) explain a limitation. Practise writing all three answers in under five minutes; the third part is what separates a full-mark answer from an average one.

Applications of United States v. Progressive, Inc.

In research
United States v. Progressive, Inc. appears in physics research whenever the underlying quantities have to be modelled precisely. Papers usually cite it as a starting assumption and then explore where it breaks down.
In technology and industry
Engineering practice reuses United States v. Progressive, Inc. in design rules, simulations and safety margins. Knowing the idea lets you read a specification sheet and understand why the numbers look the way they do.
In the classroom
United States v. Progressive, Inc. is common in secondary-school and first-year university syllabi. It links to neighbouring topics 1979 in United States case law, Nuclear secrecy, Nuclear weapon design, so understanding it makes those chapters shorter.
In everyday life
Look for United States v. Progressive, Inc. outside the textbook — in sport, cooking, traffic, electronics or the sky above you. An example you found yourself is remembered far longer than one you were given.
Ask Teacher Smith questions about this articleOpens your AI tutor with a question about “United States v. Progressive, Inc.” →

Affiliate

Preply — study more efficiently by working with a personal tutor. 50% off.

How to study United States v. Progressive, Inc. in 20 minutes

  1. Read the reference excerpt below once, without taking notes.
  2. Close the page and write down what United States v. Progressive, Inc. means in your own words.
  3. Compare your version with the excerpt and mark what you missed.
  4. Work through the three examples above with pen and paper.
  5. Explain United States v. Progressive, Inc. out loud to somebody else — or to Teacher Smith in the lgStudy chat.

Frequently asked questions

What is United States v. Progressive, Inc. in simple terms?

§ United States of America v. Progressive, Inc., Erwin Knoll, Samuel Day, Jr., and Howard Morland, 467 F.

Why does United States v. Progressive, Inc. matter?

Because it connects several physics ideas at once: it gives you a definition you can apply, a quantity you can calculate, and a way to check whether a result is plausible.

How should I study United States v. Progressive, Inc.?

Read the excerpt, restate it from memory, then work through the examples and applications listed on this page. The five-step study plan above takes about twenty minutes.

What does this page cover?

It gives you a compact reference excerpt plus original lgStudy explanations, examples, applications and study material on United States v. Progressive, Inc..

Tags

  • 1979 in United States case law
  • Nuclear secrecy
  • Nuclear weapon design
  • United States Department of Energy
  • United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin cases
  • United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin cases
  • United States Free Speech Clause case law
  • United States government secrecy

Keep exploring