Freedom of the Press and General Theory of Freedom of Speech

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wojciech Sadurski
Keyword(s):  
General Theory ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Freedom Of The Press ◽  
The Press

PERSECUTION AND THE ART OF FREEDOM: ALEXIS DE TOCQUEVILLE ON THE IMPORTANCE OF FREE PRESS AND FREE SPEECH IN DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY

2020 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 190-208
Author(s):  
Khalil M. Habib
Keyword(s):  
Free Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Freedom Of The Press ◽  
Alexis De Tocqueville ◽  
Free Society ◽  
Free Press ◽  
Constituent Element ◽  
The Press ◽  
The Right ◽  
Shed Light

AbstractAccording to Tocqueville, the freedom of the press, which he treats as an extension of the freedom of speech, is a primary constituent element of liberty. Tocqueville treats the freedom of the press in relation to and as an extension of the right to assemble and govern one’s own affairs, both of which he argues are essential to preserving liberty in a free society. Although scholars acknowledge the importance of civil associations to liberty in Tocqueville’s political thought, they routinely ignore the importance he places on the freedom of the press and speech. His reflections on the importance of the free press and speech may help to shed light on the dangers of recent attempts to censor the press and speech.

The Dominant American View of Freedoms of Press and Speech, in the Decade Leading Up to Ratification of the Federal Bill of Rights

2020 ◽  
pp. 303-336
Author(s):  
Wendell Bird
Keyword(s):  
First Amendment ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Source Material ◽  
Freedom Of The Press ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
Original Source ◽  
Narrow View ◽  
The Press ◽  
Freedom Of Press ◽  
The World

In the 1780s in America, the advocates of broad understandings of freedom of press and freedom of speech continued to argue, as “Junius Wilkes” did in 1782, that “[i]f a printer is liable to prosecution and restraint, for publishing pieces on public measures, conceived libellous, the liberty of the press is annihilated and ruined. . . . The danger is precisely the same to liberty, in punishing a person after the performance appears to the world, as in preventing its publication in the first instance. The doctrine of libels, is of pernicious consequence to the freedom of the press.” Many other essays in the 1780s showed the dominance of an expansive understanding of freedoms of press and speech, as did the declarations of rights of nine states. That was the context in which the First Amendment was adopted and ratified in 1789–1791. These conclusions about the prevalent and dominant understanding after the mid-1760s are flatly contrary to the narrow view of freedoms of press and speech stated by Blackstone and Mansfield, and restated by the neo-Blackstonians, who claim that the narrow understanding was not only predominant but exclusive through the ratification of the First Amendment and onward until 1798. This book’s conclusions are based on far more original source material than the neo-Blackstonians’ conclusions.

Present-day Poland Media Landscape: Compliance with EU Regulations

2017 ◽  
pp. 116-127
Author(s):  
Oksana Zvozdetska
Keyword(s):  
European Commission ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Freedom Of The Press ◽  
Public Media ◽  
Depth Analysis ◽  
The Press ◽  
Law And Justice ◽  
The Government ◽  
Polish Government

The article gives an in-depth analysis of the modern Poland government policy in taking on public media and the European Union stance regarding these reforms. The author argues that Poland public media have been the subject of political disputes since the 90s of the last century. Noteworthy, in October 2015 the newly elected Polish government, namely, the ruling Law and Justice party (known by its Polish initials as PiS) announced its public media to radically reform. To be more precise, the government aimed at replacing the current public media with a national broadcaster that would promote national interests under closer government control. According to PiS elite, Polish public media is presently supervised by the National Media Council, an organization that consists of members elected by the president and the Lower House of the Polish parliament. This means that Poland’s public media is under direct control of the government. The reform of the public media has been part of PiS plans to re-orientate Polish society towards traditional values since the party came back to power. What is more, the heads of the ruling Law and Justice party consider that the present-day public media are the tools of propaganda of the ruling in 2007-2015 and currently the oppositional liberal party – the Civic Platform. The researcher notes that the Polish government launched a new parliamentary initiative as a result of legislative changes, and eventually, the government has returned to the state-known media-dependent government-owned model in the past. Furthermore, from the point of view of a democratic state, law and its main provisions, this reform stipulates the authorities and the mass media symbiosis. However, public media should guarantee freedom of speech, information and creative independence and the separation of public media from politics. Remarkably, in a country, where public media used to be a tool of the communist dictatorship until 1989, media and constitutional reforms pose threats to civil liberties. According to NGO ‘Freedom House’ research, freedom of the press suffers from oppression by the authorities, the government’s intolerance to independent or unbiased journalism, political influence on the media and restrictions on freedom of expression regarding Polish history and consciousness. Interestingly according to the latest studies done in 2017, Poland public media have become partially free for the first time since 1990. To conclude, in December 20, 2017 the European Parliament adopted the resolution, backing the European Commission decision, to initiate the sanctions imposition on Poland over judicial reform. Consequently, the European Commission triggered a procedure against undermining and shrinking of democracy, violation of human rights, freedom of speech, as well as pluralism and the formation of a dependent judicial system in Poland. Keywords: Republic of Poland, public media, freedom of the press, EU sanctions

scholarly journals Limits to Freedom of Speech in the Republic of Latvia During the Parliamentary Period (1918–1934)

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 241-261
Author(s):  
Elīna Grigore-Bāra ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Democratic Republic ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The State ◽  
Freedom Of The Press ◽  
Previous Period ◽  
The Press ◽  
History Of ◽  
History Of Law ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Constitutional Identity

The article is dedicated to the analysis of one element of the constitutional identity of the Latvian State – freedom of speech – during the initial democratic period in the State’s existence. The author analyses the rules on the protection of honour and supervision of the press as limits to freedom of speech. It is concluded in the article that the boundaries between one person’s freedom of speech and another person’s honour in the Republic of Latvia changed little compared to the previous period in the history of law and that honour as a legal benefit was prized more highly. The framework of freedom of the press, in turn, was constantly expanded. However, the creation of the lists of prohibited books and third-rate and obscene literature proves that the State did not rely on individuals exercising freedom of speech properly. Paternalistic treatment of its citizens was not unknown to the new democratic republic.

scholarly journals Grundtvig og censuren

2007 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
pp. 44-90
Author(s):  
Flemming Lundgreen-Nielsen
Keyword(s):  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Freedom Of The Press ◽  
Freedom Of Religion ◽  
Court System ◽  
The Press ◽  
Middle Period

Grundtvig og censuren[Grundtvig and censorship]By Flemming Lundgreen-NielsenFor forty-six years of his life Grundtvig was engaged in a struggle for freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Over this period his attitude gradually changed. At the age of 21, he wanted not to abolish but to update the rigid and stem decree on the issue dating from 1799, his idea being that educated and scholarly orientated writers could serve as counsellors for the authorities instead of censors appointed by the police or by the Danish Chancellery (Ministry of the Interior).During a long middle period of his career as an author he time and again discussed and suggested models for setting up semi-official literary courts outside the normal court system, which could secure and improve the freedom of Danish writers and poets to no detriment of Danish society as such. In a lost libel suit in 1826 Grundtvig incurred life-long personal censorship which ran until 1837, when a revision of the relevant legal paragraph was realized. As a 67-year-old member of the first Danish democratic parliament, Grundtvig in 1850 advocated freedom of the press and of speech with as few limitations as possible. His winding way to this conclusion is followed through a series of his own texts with particular attention to two sources which have been overlooked by Grundtvig scholars, namely the censor suppressed third part of an essay on the freedom of religion (printed 1827, but not published until 1866) and a pamphlet issued in 1845 but never reprinted, opposing a proposed revision (1844) of the 1799 press ordinance. In the latter case, references to fragmentary manuscripts not included in Grundtvig’s final argumentation are added.

scholarly journals Freedom of the Press

Communication ◽  
2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dwight Teeter
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
Electronic Media ◽  
Press Freedom ◽  
Freedom Of The Press ◽  
Free Exercise ◽  
The Press

Freedom of the press refers to the freedom to criticize government without suffering official interference or punishment, before or after publication. “Freedom of the press,” “freedom of speech,” and “freedom of expression” are terms often used together in the United States, with “the press” primarily connoting print and electronic media. This bibliography concentrates on freedom of the press as defined by some major American and English writers and in decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. Because of the advent of electronic media and of the internet and of other “new media” or “social media” during the 20th and early 21st centuries, the term “freedom of the press” is used to cover mediated communication in general. The clearest indicator of press freedom is that opponents of government or of government leaders, laws, or policies can publish effective criticisms without suffering government retaliation in the form of fines, imprisonment, or even death. That definition does not include communications that may break laws of general applicability, such as the law of fraud, nor violation of a contract. It also does not cover extralegal controls such a communicator’s sense of the community’s range of permissible expression, or public pressures (including mob action) against the press in times of crisis. The legal definition of “freedom of the press” in the United States begins with the forty-five words of the First Amendment to the Constitution, adopted 15 December 1791: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” The absolute words of prohibition against congressional statutes tampering with speech or press freedom were, however, overridden early in the nation’s history by Congress in 1798, just seven years after the adoption of the First Amendment. Congress then passed the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, which, among other things, made it a crime to criticize the federal government or government leaders. These short-lived enactments, which fueled bitter partisan controversy in the new nation, are discussed in the Historical Context section. Freedom of the press is not static: it rises in times of peace and diminishes in times of war or national crisis, when most needed by society.

Dietz Delivers

2020 ◽  
pp. 127-134
Author(s):  
Chris Yogerst
Keyword(s):  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Press Freedom ◽  
Freedom Of The Press ◽  
The Press ◽  
Legal Measure

As director of advertising and publicity for MGM, Howard Dietz had a long industrial knowledge after working with the company since 1924. Dietz informed the subcommittee that his team organizes film promotions and works with local representatives as well as the staff at the studio in California. Senator Tobey threw the same questions at Dietz about defining freedom of the press. “Freedom of speech within those definitions as relates to the press itself,” Dietz answered. Defining censorship of the press, Dietz argued it would take “a legal measure to restrain the press.” Tobey pressed Dietz on the possibility of legislation against censorship of the press, but Dietz noted that the Constitution already protected the freedoms of the press – no new laws should be necessary. Dietz also put to rest the controversy surrounding a theater in Nashville and possible interference from the studio. Schenck also resumed testimony.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document