TOPIC
Freedom of Speech and the Press
HOME | Mission/Purpose | Online Constitution | Legislative Branch |Executive Branch | Judicial Branch | Articles 1 - 7 | Bill of Rights | Amendments 11 - 27 | Show Clips | Federalist and Anti-federalist Papers | Constitution Learning Resources | Constitutional Facts | Teacher Lesson Plans and Resources | My You Tube Videos
Freedom of speech is the concept of being able to speak freely without censorship. It is often regarded as an integral concept in modern liberal democracies. The right to freedom of speech is guaranteed under international law through numerous human rights instruments, notably under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, although implementation remains lacking in many countries. The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes preferred, since the right is not confined to verbal speech but is understood to protect any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.
In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country, although the degree of freedom varies greatly. Industrialized countries also have varying approaches to balance freedom with order. For instance, the United States First Amendment theoretically grants absolute freedom, placing the burden upon the state to demonstrate when (if) a limitation of this freedom is necessary. In almost all liberal democracies, it is generally recognized that restrictions should be the exception and free expression the rule; nevertheless, compliance with this principle is often lacking.
However, there are exceptions to Article I concerning freedom of speech;
i.e., you can not yell fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire. Most of
such law has its origins in legal judicial precedent case law.
Freedom of speech is a joke in America, because it makes no difference if what
you are saying is truthful and critical to our future, if the controlling powers
decide your speech is not agreeable to them they can virtually punish you at
will.
You can lose your reputation, your job, and you can be black listed. Your
business can be boycotted and you can be ostracized to the nth degree.
They have easy ways to destroy you economically; therefore, the dictionary
definition of freedom is not valid.
The definition of freedom is: 1 a) exception or liberation from the
control of some other person, or arbitrary power; liberty; independence b)
exception from arbitrary restrictions on a specified civil right; civil or
political liberty/freedom of speech/; also without hindrance or restraint.
Article 1 of The Constitutional Amendments provides NO "legal" freedom of speech
and press "rights" as defined in Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College
Edition, Copyrighted 1994, by Simon & Schuster, Inc.
I see NO federal constitutional rights of freedom of speech and press;
therefore, you have NO protected freedom to speak or publish according to the
definition of freedom, or the declarations of the constitution.
All of the controlling powers that be can easily and at will punish anyone for
speaking against government policies. I wouldn't call that a freedom but an
invitation to be economically and humanly punished for speaking or publishing
your political opinions.
It appears that court decisions or statutory law represent your only so-called
protections.
Freedom of the Press (or Press Freedom) is the guarantee by a government of free public press for its citizens and their associations, extended to members of news gathering organizations, and their published reporting. It also extends to news gathering, and processes involved in obtaining information for public distribution. Not all countries are protected by a bill of rights or the constitutional provision pertaining to Freedom of the Press.
The defense of John Peter Zenger against libel charges in 1735 is often seen as the cornerstone of American press freedom. After the American Revolution, several states provided for freedom of the press, and the First Amendment (1791) to the U.S. Constitution declared that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech or of the press.” Whether these acts were intended to prohibit prosecution for seditious libel or merely to prohibit prior restraint has been a matter of controversy. In reaction to the Sedition Act (1798), a more libertarian interpretation of the First Amendment became dominant, which saw it as rejecting seditious libel as a crime. The First Amendment was later (beginning in the 1920s) applied to all the states by judicial interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment (1868).
Wartime situations often present challenges to the legal limits of press freedom. What was looked upon as irresponsible reporting during the Civil War led to attempts by civil and military authorities to impose restrictions upon the press. Appeals by the War Department for publishers to voluntarily suppress news that was strategic to the war were, however, largely ineffective. During World War I, near hysteria over the possibility of sabotage led Congress to pass the Espionage Acts (1917) and the Sedition Act (1918). These acts limited freedom of the press to such an extent that not only was censorship exercised against pro-German publications but also against German-language publications and those advocating socialism or pacifism.
In 1931, the Supreme Court, in Near v. Minnesota, for the first time declared almost all forms of prior restraint to be unconstitutional. In World War II the Office of Censorship, under the direction of Byron Price, expanded upon techniques developed by George Creel's Censorship Board of World War I. The new office supervised (1941–45) the most comprehensive censorship in U.S. history. Compliance was voluntary, however, and was based on the office's suggestion to editors on topics to avoid. Because Price and his assistants were respected journalists themselves, newspapers and journals cooperated. Similar cooperation was accorded to the Office of War Information, which controlled the flow of news from government agencies. As a result, the government rarely took punitive action.
After the war, many news organizations undertook campaigns against secrecy in government, maintaining that the withholding of public records threatens freedom of the press. As world tensions heightened during the cold war in the 1950s and 60s, defense officials often protested that the mere absence of war did not justify peacetime openness in the press.
In the late 1960s and early 70s, there were frequent charges and countercharges between journalists and government officials concerning the withholding of information on the Vietnam War by the government. The only recognized grounds for prior restraint, national security, was tested in 1971 when Daniel Ellsberg, a former government employee who believed that information that should be made public was being withheld by the government, released the Pentagon Papers, a collection of classified government documents concerning the Vietnam War. The government tried to block their publication, but the U.S. Supreme Court, in New York Times Co. v. United States (1971), permitted their release.
The First Amendment has not been extended to the gathering as well as the publication of news. The experience of the Vietnam War led the U.S. government to restrict the access of reporters in combat areas in subsequent military encounters. This practice, used during the 1983 invasion of Grenada and the 1991 Persian Gulf War, was bitterly resented by many reporters. In domestic affairs, although a number of states have passed shield laws, which permit journalists to refuse to disclose confidential information and sources to law-enforcement bodies, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized no unrestricted right of press confidentiality.
