Freedom of the press is the right to publish facts, ideas, and opinions without interference from the government or from private groups. This right applies to the printed media, including books and newspapers, and to the electronic media, including radio, television, and computer networks.
Freedom of the press has been disputed since modern printing began in the 1400’s, because words have great power to influence people. Today, this power is greater than ever because of the many modern methods of communication. A number of governments place limits on the press because they believe the power of words would be used to oppose them. Many governments have taken control of the press to use it in their own interests. Most publishers and writers, on the other hand, fight for as much freedom as possible.
Democratic constitutions grant freedom of the press to encourage the exchange of ideas and to check the power of the government. Citizens of democracies need information to help them decide whether to support the policies of their national and local governments. In a democracy, freedom of the press applies not only to political and social issues but also to business, cultural, religious, and scientific matters.
Most democratic governments limit freedom of the press in three major types of cases. In such cases, these governments believe that press freedom could endanger individuals, national security, or social morality. (1) Laws against libel and invasion of privacy protect people from writings that could threaten their reputation or privacy (see Libel ). (2) Laws against sedition (urging revolution) and treason work to prevent publication of material that could harm a nation’s security. (3) Laws against obscenity (offensive language) aim at the protection of the morals of the people.
Government limits of press freedom may take the form of prior restraint or subsequent punishment. Prior restraint is censorship of the press prior to publication. Subsequent punishment refers to fines and imprisonment, or both, as a form of punishment after publication. Subsequent punishment often forces some action by the press. In the United States and other democratic countries, the courts have reasoned that prior restraint is nearly always too extreme a remedy for abuses by the press.
Dictatorships do not allow freedom of the press. Dictators believe they alone hold the truth—and that opposition to them endangers the nation.
In the United States,
freedom of the press is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution. All state constitutions also include protection for press freedom. Court decisions help make clear both the extent and the limits of this freedom. In general, the First Amendment was intended to prohibit censorship by the government before publication. But many scholars believe the amendment might allow laws regulating and punishing speech after the fact. However, some subsequent punishment can be so severe that it effectively becomes prior restraint.
The U.S. press regulates itself to a great extent. For example, most publishers do not print material that they know is false or that could lead to crime, riot, or revolution. They also avoid publishing libelous material, obscenities, and other matter that might offend a large number of readers. In addition, because the press in the United States depends heavily on advertising income, it sometimes does not publish material that would displease its advertisers.
Freedom of the press was one goal of the American Colonies in their struggle for independence from the United Kingdom. The libel trial of John Peter Zenger in 1735 became a major step in the fight for this freedom. Zenger was the publisher of the New-York Weekly Journal, which criticized the British government. A jury found Zenger innocent after his attorney argued that Zenger had printed the truth and that truth is not libelous. See Zenger, John Peter.
The severest restrictions on the press in the United States—and in all other countries—are imposed during times of crisis, especially wartime. During World War II (1939-1945), for example, Congress passed laws banning the publication of any material that could interfere with the war effort or harm national security.
During the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, criticism by the U.S. press of the nation’s involvement in Vietnam became increasingly widespread. This criticism helped broaden public opposition to the Vietnam War and probably influenced the government’s change in policy toward the war. In 1971, the government tried to stop The New York Times and The Washington Post from publishing parts of a secret study of the war. The government claimed that publication of the so-called Pentagon Papers could harm national security. But the Supreme Court of the United States blocked the government’s action. It forbade such prior censorship of the press unless it was justified by an emergency and could be linked to “direct, immediate, and irreparable harm” to the nation. For example, the press would not be allowed to print the plans for making a nuclear bomb.
Also in the 1960’s and 1970’s, many judges issued rulings frequently referred to as gag orders. The orders forbade the press to publish information that judges thought might violate a defendant’s right to a fair trial. Such information might include confessions made by defendants or facts about their past. The press argued that gag orders violated the First Amendment. In 1976, the Nebraska Press Association challenged a Nebraska gag order before the Supreme Court. The court ruled that such orders are unconstitutional, except in extraordinary circumstances.
More than half the states have shield laws that permit members of the press to protect confidential sources. But no such federal statute exists. In a 1972 case involving a reporter who witnessed the production of narcotics, the Supreme Court held that there is no federal privilege for reporters to protect their sources.
In other countries.
Freedom of the press exists largely in the Western European countries, the English-speaking nations, and Japan. It is present to a limited extent in some Latin-American countries.
Press restrictions vary greatly from country to country. When a libel case is brought in the United Kingdom, the law assumes that a person has been libeled. The burden is on the press to prove otherwise. The relative ease of winning such cases has caused many foreign claimants to bring libel actions in the United Kingdom for articles that also appear in books and magazines in other countries. In Italy, the press restricts itself on what it prints about the pope. Such nations as Australia and Ireland have strict obscenity laws. But the obscenity laws in such countries as Norway and Sweden are not strict. Denmark dropped all its obscenity laws during the 1960’s.
The governments of many countries have strict overall controls on the press. A number of nations in Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East have censorship boards that check all publications. The censorship boards make sure newspapers and other publications follow government guidelines and that they agree with official policy.
The governments of China and certain other Communist nations own and operate the press themselves. The Communist Party makes sure that the press follows the policies of the party.
History.
Rulers and church leaders restricted the writing and distribution of certain material even before there was a press. In those days, when everything was written by hand, books considered offensive were banned or burned. Since the A.D. 400’s, the Roman Catholic Church has restricted material that it considers contrary to church teachings.
Early printers had to obtain a license from the government or from some religious group for any material they wanted to publish. In 1644, the English poet and political writer John Milton criticized such licensing in his pamphlet Areopagitica. This essay was one of the earliest arguments for freedom of the press. In time, the United Kingdom and other nations ended the licensing system. By the 1800’s, the press of many countries had considerable freedom.
Freedom of the press led to some abuses. In the late 1800’s, for example, some U.S. newspapers published false and sensational material to attract readers. Some people favored government regulation to stop such abuses by the so-called “yellow press.” But in most cases, such regulation would have been unconstitutional.
During the 1900’s, the U.S. press grew to accept its responsibility to the public. Journalists and other media professionals became far more careful and conscientious in checking facts and reporting the news. In many other countries, however, the press lost its freedom. For example, the Fascists in Italy and the Nazis in Germany destroyed press freedom before and during World War II and used the press for their own purposes. Civilian or military dictatorships ruled many countries in the middle and late 1900’s. All these governments censored the press heavily.
