More handpicked essays just for you.
Public perceptions influenced by the media
The influences of media
Freedom of speech and why it's important to guarantee
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The Frist Amendment (1791) to the Constitution of the United States (“Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”) holds the importance of the freedom of speech and press as one of the most basic rights of US citizens and reporters in the process of upholding a democratic society. Freedom of expression; the ability of people to communicate their feelings and thoughts effectively, without fear of being silenced, is a titanic right the people of the United States possess and is not something that came to them so easily. Neither is the Freedom of the Press; to report on everything that is true, of importance to public knowledge and decision making and reflects on the actions of the government and in effect may hold it responsible in the eyes of the people it serves. Initially however, when British colonists were still in power over the now established region of the United States, censorship (people not being allowed to say what they wanted, particularly in criticism of the Crown or its empowered subjects) was upheld as a right of the crown, a belief necessary to maintaining a controlled empire. In 1734 however, the first instance of breaking away from British law and emerging towards an American law that propagated a “freedom to print/ publish criticism of the government” occurred when John Peter Zenger published criticism against the colonial governor of New York, William Cosby, in his newspaper The New York Weekly Journal. Zenger was arrested (under the 18th Century British Sedition Law), but was set free once the jury acquitted him based on the argument made by his attorneys that imprisoning him for fairly and truthfully criticizing the government was not the right way to promote justice. Eve... ... middle of paper ... ...s nature of the information. However, the government later dropped the case and the injunction was lifted, allowing the printing of the article as other private sources had already started to disseminate the information. The Freedom of the Press, as granted by the First Amendment, allows the Press great privileges, only a few of which have been discussed in this paper. Regardless of the open scope of the topic, it is irrefutable that the Press enjoys a vast amount of power and freedom in what it can and cannot do, and what it does or doesn’t have a right to. The mere fact that the cases discussed above are 5 in favor of the press and 3 not in favor, whereas 3 of the 5 cases are defamation cases, reflects on the actual state of how free the press really is in the American society, and how important the First Amendment and its purpose is to the American way of life.
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.
John Peter Zenger was the one who established the idea of freedom of speech and the press. The Constitution of the United States reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or press; or the right of the people to peacefully assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Zenger. Zenger was arrested for libel, which is something that goes against the government. Although he did not write the article, he was the one accused because he printed and published it.
The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" (First Amendment Oct. 20, 2013). But "the First Amendment does not protect all speech from government censorship, and it does not prevent private non-government entities from censoring. Years of US Supreme Court decisions have identified exceptions to the general rule that the governments in the United States cannot censor" (Censorship Copyright © 2002). American citizen's right of freedom of speech should be held in the highest integrity and any kind of censorship of free speech should not be allowed because it take away those rights. However, censorship has been going on for centuries.
The First Amendment protects the right of freedom of speech, which gradually merges into the modern perspective of the public throughout the history and present. The restriction over the cable TV and broadcast media subjected by the Federal Communications Commission violates the freedom of speech, irritating the dissatisfied public by controlling over what can be said on the air. Should the FCC interfere with the free speech of media? The discretion of content being presented to the public should not be completely determined by the FCC, but the public in its entirety which enforces a self-regulation with freedom and justice, upholding and emphasizing the freedom of speech by abolishing the hindrance the FCC brought.
Freedom of the press gives the rights to express feelings and thoughts through writing. Prior to the Freedom of Press Clause the government had authority over what could be printed in newspapers and articles.2 The government had to approve all information before it was published and released. It was a crime to print anything that contained content that was seditious libel, which is anything that criticizes the government or its officials before freedom of the press was established.3If the writing were deamed inappropriate to the government it was not allowed to be printed even if it was not libel. This clause protects “the press” from being prosecuted by all levels and branches of the government. Writers can make statements as long as they are not proven to be malice or libel.In the case New
The traditionalist approach to free speech protection is centered on core values and yields results that are basically neutral so that content allowed through one communication medium is permissible in all media.Freedom of speech and of the press is a basic tenant of United States constitutional law. Perhaps concern for the English use of prior restraint (licensing of press) and seditious libel was the reason for including the first amendment in our bill of rights. When the first amendment became law the printed page was the most widely used non-verbal medium of speech. Speech, as we understand it, involves more than verbal communication. Speecht includes pictures, movies, radio, television and expressive conduct [Shelton v. Tucker, 364 US 479 (1960)].
The Court held, that in this context, freedoms of the press and speech under the First Amendment are considered protected liberty interests under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. The state statute limited these freedoms by restrictions on concrete speech that have the effect of advocating, advising, or overthrowing organized government through unlawful means.
Freedom of press protects publication of information and opinions. Most of the principles that apply to freedom of speech also apply to freedom of the press. Like freedom of speech, freedom of the press allows varying viewpoints to be heard. However, one special meaning for freedom of the press is that of prior restraint. The courts in Near v Minnesota (1931) and New York Times v United States (1971) have ruled that the government cannot censor information before it is written and published, except in extreme cases of national
During the formation of our Constitution, our forefathers had enough foresight to know that one of the most sacred freedoms that a society can have is freedom of the press. They, however, could not envision how many different forms of the press there would be in the years after the Constitution was written. During our nation's formative years, the term press was primarily restricted to media in terms of newspapers and books. Over the years with different courts, congresses, and presidents, we have seen an expansion of the term press. This has been made even more so with advancing technology and the global expansion of the media. Therefore when we examine the media we must take a contemporary approach to this issue rather than looking at the issue based on the past.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms gives a constitutional freedom to the media as well as any other media of communication. This is a fundamental freedom to the press. Though the freedom in Canada is considered as the “freedom governed by law,” these freedoms outlined in the charter are always subject to reasonable limits prescribed by the law justified in a free, democratic society (Riechel, 2002).
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.
It has been well settled that freedom of expression is one of the most cherished values of a free democratic society. It is indispensable to the operation of a democratic society whose basic postulate is that the government shall be based on the consent of the governed. But, such a consent implies not only that the consent shall be free but also that it shall be grounded on adequate information, discussion and aided by the widest possible dissemination of information and opinions from diverse and antagonistic sources. The media on reporting and publishing the matter must have ‘fair and accurate’ matter, based on evidence and strong sources. There has been a responsibility given to the media and should be handled accordingly. Freedom of expression which includes freedom of the press has a capacious content and is not restricted to expression of thoughts and ideas which are accepted and acceptable but also to those which offend or shock any section of the population. It also includes the right to receive information and ideas of all kinds from different sources. In essence, the freedom of expression embodies the right to know. However, under our Constitution no right in Part III is absolute. Freedom of expression is not an absolute value under our Constitution. It must not be forgotten that no single value, no matter exalted, can bear the full burden of upholding a democratic system of government. Therefore, understanding that no provision in part III of the constitution is not absolute, it must be understood, that if by implication the ambit of ‘freedom of speech and expression’ has become wider, then similarly, by implication certain ‘prior restraints’ are also applicable, meaning that the media needs to understand its freedom to ...
political change in its own right. In this vein, the first section of the paper
Social activist Howard Zinn once said, “I suppose the most revolutionary act one can engage in is to spread the truth.” It is clear the country is currently being destroyed by our dishonest, ruthless leaders with the threat to suspend our basic human rights. Our politicians have shattered our political system. I am here today to challenge the reckless plan to eradicate our human rights and prove that Freedom of the Press is vital to prevent the exploitation of our families and most importantly, our citizens. Our country is in desperate need. In desperate need of the truth. As formerly proud, Australian citizens, do you not agree that it is our duty to work together, pick up the pieces, restore our rights and fix the political nightmare that is taking over our nation? Freedom of the press is