Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Freedom of the press essays
Five importance of freedom of press
Freedom of the press and privacy
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Freedom of the press essays
Part B: Essays 1. First Amendment Right – Freedom of the Press. According to the U.S. constitution and thereunder the first amendment, the press is said to be free, and the government cannot legally prohibit this freedom. Overall, the press holds an enormous responsibility. It is the watchdog of the community, the guarder of the government and the public. They provide an unofficial form of checks and balances on the government by informing the public on what the government is doing. Through this, they can persuade the public to view things in from one perspective or another. They have been given the constitutional right to do this. Do they really do this freely put under the control and supervision of those who they report on?According to …show more content…
Hayes, chapter eight). There, it was ruled that there is no constitutional privilege for journalists. Justice Byron White wrote that the grand jury plays an important, constitutional role that outweighs any burden on newsgathering that might come from the occasional subpoena to reporters. In relation to the same case, three justices wrote a checklist for when the government should be able to require a journalist to reveal his or her sources. Those were: 1. That there is probable cause to believe the journalist has clearly relevant information regarding a specific probable violation of law; 2. That the information cannot be obtained in some other way that does not so heavily infringe on the First Amendment; and 3. That there is a compelling and overriding interest in the information. Even though these guidelines only were made in a dissenting opinion, they have been frequently used in state courts and lower federal courts. In criminal cases in federal courts, the defendant 's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial or the law enforcements ' need to conduct a full investigation is considered more important (chapter eight). At the same time, the majority of the U.S. states have shield laws that gives a reporter 's privilege, but there does not exist a federal shield law. When taking into consideration that journalists are not protected in federal law in form of a reporters ' privilege or shield law, it might take some of the feeling of freedom away when writing. A press is not free, if it cannot get sources to talk about controversial matters, because they fair to be revealed in court. The press should be able to write about matters such as governmental corruption without risking going to jail when refusing to give up the sources for the story. That the U.S. government is willing to punish journalists that do not reveal their sources jeopardizes the freedom of the
Justice Douglas joined by Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall stated that the regulation violates the prisoners’ and the press’ First Amendment rights. However, Justice Stewart, Justice Burger, Justice Powell, Justice White, Justice Blackmun, and Justice Rehnquist stated in their dissent prohibiting face-to-face interviews was not unconstitutional and that restricting inmate visitation allowed inmates to communicate with people who could aid in their rehabilitation, but can be restricted when the security of the institution is at risk, referencing Chief Justice Warren in Zemel v. Rusk (Pell v. Procunier, n.d.). The court also stated that the media’s amendment rights were not violated. Journalists are free to visit maximum and minimum institutions and to talk to inmates and interview inmates selected at random, different than members of the general public. The court indicated that “The First Amendment does not guarantee the press a constitutional right of special access to information not available to the public generally” (2013).
In the Supreme Court case of the New York Times Co. vs. United States there is a power struggle. This struggle includes the entities of the individual freedoms against the interests of federal government. It is well known that the first amendment protects the freedom of speech, but to what extent does this freedom exist. There have been instances in which speech has been limited; Schenck vs. United States(1919) was the landmark case which instituted such limitations due to circumstances of “clear and present danger”. Many have noted that the press serves as an overseer which both apprehends and guides national agenda. However, if the federal government possessed the ability to censor the press would the government restrain itself? In the case of the Pentagon Papers the necessities of individual freedoms supersedes the scope of the national government.
In America the Amendment 1 of the U.S. Constitution gives the American people the right to peaceably assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Most notably Amendment 1 is known for and most often cited as giving the Freedom of Speech. Even before this amendment was ratified people in the U.S. were protesting, as in the Boston Tea Party. Protesting has been a way to effect change in America. A question to ask is this: is there a right way or wrong way to protest.
" 2. The court said that it was difficult decide with the argument of executive privilege because there was no real claim to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets. 3. The court stated: "We conclude that when the ground for asserting privilege as to subpoenaed materials sought for use in criminal trial is based only on the generalized interest in confidentiality, it cannot prevail over the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of justice. The generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial.
“When a country does experience major conflict, such as civil wars or major regime-challenging protests, press freedoms are more closely associated with nonviolent conflict compared to violent conflict” (Why Freedom of Speech Matters). Freedom of expression gives people the chance to speak out toward their government, and express their issues. This makes it simpler for the government to respond to them, decreasing the risk of violence. “I found that when comparing instances of major nonviolent conflict (think Tunisia protests during Arab Spring) and violent conflict (think Syrian civil war), higher levels of press freedoms were strong predictors of nonviolent conflict over violent conflict” (Why Freedom of Speech Matters). With this in mind, there could be more violence toward the government or between the people of the United states, if freedom of expression did not exist.
1. In the First Amendment, the clause that states “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion” is based on the Establishment Clauses that is incorporated in the amendment. This clauses prohibits the government to establish a state religion and then enforce it on its citizens to believe it. Without this clause, the government can force participation in this chosen religion, and then punish anyone who does not obey to the faith chosen. This clause was in issue in a court case mentioned in Gaustad’s reading “Proclaim Liberty Throughout All the Land”. March v. Chambers was a court case that involved the establishment clause. Chambers was a member of the Nebraska state legislature who began each session with prayer by a chaplain who was being paid the state. The case stated that this violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. However, the court stated that the establishment clause was not breached by the prayer, but was violated because of the fact that the chaplain was being paid from public funds.
On December 15th, 1971, the first X amendments to the Constitution went into affect. The first X amendments to the constitution were known as the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment was written by James Madison because the American people were demanding a guarantee of their freedom. The First Amendment was put into place to protect American’s freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly and freedom of petition. The First Amendment was written as follows;
The First Amendment guarantees that congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press. U.S. CONST. amend. I. The courts have heeded the First Amendment’s underlying values in order to determine whether or not recording police officers is a freedom of the press and have answered in the affirmative; they have firmly established that the First Amendment extends further and encompasses a range of conduct related to receiving information and ideas. Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78, 82 (1st Cir. 2011). The Supreme Court has observed that the First Amendment protects the right to gather news from any source by means within the law. See id.at 82.
Stanley Fish states in his essay “The Free-Speech Follies”, “The modern American version of crying wolf is crying First Amendment” (496). The First Amendment is made up of five basic freedoms given to the United States citizens that consist of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to hold a peaceful protest, freedom of press, and the right to protest. Within the Constitution there are no words that state the rights include for society to speak rudely to, or about, others. The article “Freedom of Speech” explains, “Slander consists of orally making and libel consists of publishing false statements that are damaging to the reputation of another” (1). People are allowed to have their own beliefs and opinions; however, they should not
The First Amendment is the first section of the Bill of Rights and is often considered the most important part of the U.S Constitution because it guarantees the citizens of United States the essential personal freedoms of religion, speech, press, peaceful assembly and the freedom to petition the Government. Thanks to the rights granted by the First Amendment, Americans are able to live in a country where they can freely express themselves, speak their mind, pray without interference, protest in peace and where their opinions are taken into consideration, which is something not many other nationalities have the fortune of saying. The Founding Fathers were the framers of the Constitution of the U.S., and the responsible for the elaboration of the First Amendment. The majority of the Founding Fathers were enlightenment thinkers who were in love with liberty, and thought that basic political rights were inevitable for man’s nature. After having experienced the tyranny from their mother countries, the Founding Fathers carefully constructed the Constitution of the United States in a way where tyranny was avoided and a government for the people, by the people and of the people was developed, which is clearly reflected in the Constitution. At the time of inception of the United States, the Founding Fathers created the First Amendment in order to ensure that the government would not interfere with Americans’ basic civil rights. The rights outlined on the First Amendment were considered so important by these leaders that many states refused to ratify the Constitution of the United Sates until there was a conjecture of amendments that would protect individual rights in the future.
The old proverb “the Pen is mightier than the sword” (Edward Bulwer-Lytton, Richelieu; Or the Conspiracy) still holds significance in protecting of public rights. Words such as freedom, and liberty engendered the idea for democracy. Such words formed into sentences and paragraphs enlightened the public to take action against tyranny and corruption. Freedom of the press is what ensured the general masses of their public rights. The exemplary case in which the freedom of the press played a role was the endeavors of Woodward and Bernstein to unravel the corrupted politics behind the Watergate Scandal. The movie All the President’s Men depicts the proceedings of the Watergate scandal, the scheme to attack the crux of democracy: “ the open election”. Also how the two journalists of the Washington Post progressed to unveil the relationship between the Watergate Burglary and the White House. On one hand, the movie represents the role of the media in its obligation to convey the truth to the masses. On the other hand, the movie reflects political corruption and conspiracy. The accomplishment of Woodward and Bernstein presents the importance of the interaction between the media, the government, and the general masses of society. The role of the media is not only to intervene between the State and the public, but also to take account of public ideas and to apply those ideas to new policies. Also, the media acts as a safeguard to prevent the corruption of the State. Thus, the Watergate scandal signifies the significance of the media as an intermediary between the government and the public mass.
The fundamental purpose of the first amendment was to guarantee the maintenance of an effective system of free speech and expression. This calls for an examination of the various elements which are necessary to support such a system in a modem democratic society. Some of these elements found early articulation in the classic theory of free expression, as it developed over the course of centuries; others are the outgrowth of contemporary conditions. More specifically, it is necessary to analyze what it is that the first amendment attempts to maintain: the function of freedom of expression in a democratic society; what the practical difficulties are in maintaining such a system: the dynamic forces at work in any governmental attempt to restrict or regulate expression; and the role of law and legal institutions in developing and supporting freedom of expression. These three elements are the basic components of any comprehensive theory of the first amendment viewed as a guarantee of a system of free expression.
Freedom of Press; this right is design to discourage the government from operating in secrecy and from controlling the information citizens receive.
The first amendment grants the freedom of the press, speech, and religion. The first amendment also grants that the media is immune from
Americans look to the press to provide the information they need to make informed political choices. How well the press lives up to its responsibility to provide this information has a direct impact upon Americans: how they think about and act upon the issues that confront them.