1 st Amendment Freedom of Press Freedom of

1 st Amendment Freedom of Press

Freedom of Press – Pro/Con One of the most potentially damaging groups to a Constitution is the Press. Governments face the greatest amount of scrutiny from these individuals However, the United States government still feels that it is essential for the people to have this right. This had direct correlation with the Freedom of Speech

Arguments for free speech Freedom of Expression promotes individual growth and human dignity: People have the right to believe and think in their own ways. However, these freedoms would be worthless if you could not express them. This freedom also enables one to test beliefs against others.

Freedom of expression is important for the advancement of knowledge: “Progress is possible only when all points of view can be expressed and considered. ”

Freedom of expression is a necessary part of representative government: The government consists of representatives from the people. Freedom of expression, speech, and press allow these representatives to understand the goals and beliefs of the people they represent.

Freedom of expression is vital to bringing about peaceful social change: Having the ability to talk about new ideas and opinions is important to keep people from resorted to violence. Peaceful expression allows violence to remain a last resort.

Freedom of expression is essential for the protection of all individual rights: The ability to freely speak about anything enables the people to explain how freedoms are being taken away. This ability helps protect itself.

How were these freedoms protected early on? England allowed its people to speak and write what they wanted without censorship. However, individuals could still be prosecuted later on for publishing anything that might injure the reputation of the government (seditious libel).

Individuals could be punished for publishing malicious items about other individuals. Indecent expression and blasphemy were also illegal and were punishable by English law General idea: No one is allowed to make false and malicious statements

John Adams’ Sedition Act of 1798 took away the freedom of press. The large outcry against it was an example of the importance in America of these freedoms. “Our liberty depends on freedom of press, and that cannot be limited without being lost. ” - Jefferson

What if someone believes something to be true, but the opposition simply denies it? Seditious libel is another example of a vague term that has no specific definition in the Constitution. Generally speaking, it refers to defaming or ridiculing officers of the government, the Constitution, laws, or government policies that might jeopardize “public peace”

John Peter Zenger Was arrested and put on trial for seditious libel The judge had told the jury that truth simply did not mean innocence. The judge claimed he had the power to determine the definition of seditious libel The only matter of question in this case was did Zenger allow the malicious articles to be published?

John Peter Zenger never denied printing the papers The jury ignored the judge’s orders and found Zenger not guilty What Zenger wrote was not false, therefore reporting true facts was not libel This was a major step in the protection of the press

Oppression of the Press Throughout history there have been instances where the press has been limited and censored: Slavery era: It was illegal to print abolitionist articles Civil War: Illegal to talk badly about the Union and President Lincoln Early labor movement: Socialism and Communism Cold War: Pro-Communist beliefs

When speech is limited Liberty does not mean that you can do whatever you want There are rules that actually protect others by limiting your speech Disturbing the peace Causing panic

Government limits Laws may not discriminate unfairly on the basis of the content of the expression or the speaker Cannot permit certain groups freedom but not others Cannot single out unpopular viewpoints Cannot give out secret information

Time, place, and manner restrictions must be contentneutral and applied fairly The government is allowed to limit when and where free speech can occur These restrictions cannot hinder a groups ability to give a speech or the content of their speech

Regulations on expression cannot be vague: Rules regulating freedom of speech, and press must be specific and very detailed. There can be no gray area

Regulations must not be overly broad and must be implemented by the “least restrictive means” If violence breaks out during a political rally, it is to broad to simply outlaw all political rallies because that would infringe on other groups’ rights

Press World Wide