Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Speech and Religious Tolerance

1939 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 35
Author(s):  
Mrs. Eugene Meyer
Keyword(s):  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Press Freedom ◽  
Freedom Of The Press ◽  
Religious Tolerance ◽  
The Press

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.

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.

scholarly journals A day for freedom

1996 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 84-85
Author(s):  
Reporters Sans Frontieres
Keyword(s):  
Annual Report ◽  
Press Freedom ◽  
Freedom Of The Press ◽  
The Press ◽  
The World ◽  
The Right

On 3 May 1996, International Press Freedom Day, Reporters Sans Frontieres published its seventh Annual report on freedom of the press throughout the world, which gave an account of infringements of the right to be informed in 149 countries.    

scholarly journals Freedom and The Role of The Press on Law Enforcement Reviewed in The Perspective of Law Number: 40 Of 1999, Concerning The Press

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Satino Satino ◽  
Yuliana Yuli W ◽  
Iswahyuni Adil
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Good Life ◽  
Public Information ◽  
Press Freedom ◽  
Freedom Of The Press ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Press ◽  
The Republic

Law Number 40 of 1999 concerning the Press is one of the legal regulations that have a role in efforts to realize a good life together. The struggle of the Indonesian press to achieve freedom was finally achieved after the enactment of Law Number 40 of 1999 concerning the Press. The purpose of this study is to find out how the freedom and role of the press in law enforcement are reviewed from the perspective of Law Number 40 of 1999, concerning the press. This study uses a sociological juridical method, the results of research conducted on real facts in society with the intent and purpose of finding facts, then proceeding with finding problems, ultimately leading to problem identification and leading to problem solving. The results of the research include the press trying to carry out its functions, rights, obligations, and roles, so the press must respect the human rights of everyone. The press has an important role in realizing Human Rights (HAM), as guaranteed in the Decree of the People's Consultative Assembly of the Republic of Indonesia Number: XVII/MPR/1998. Based on the results of the research above, it is necessary to uphold the freedom of the press in conveying public information in an honest and balanced manner and that freedom of the press is not absolute for the press alone, but to guarantee the rights of the public to obtain information. what happened in the context of realizing press freedom as contained in Law/040/1999 concerning the Press.

Freedom of the Press and Anti-Corruption

2021 ◽  
pp. 261-296
Author(s):  
Mark Knights
Keyword(s):  
Press Freedom ◽  
Close Connection ◽  
Freedom Of The Press ◽  
Cultural Norms ◽  
Free Press ◽  
Public Discussion ◽  
The Press ◽  
At Home

Public discussion of corruption was very important in shaping cultural norms as well as scrutinising and pressing for the reform of Britain’s domestic and imperial administrations. The focus of this chapter is on the debates surrounding the nature and extent of the freedom of Britain’s precociously free press to expose corruption. The chapter argues that there was a close connection between justifications for anti-corruption and ideological defences of a free press: freedom of the press and freedom from corruption often went hand in hand. Some critics argued that the press should not be shackled by those in office whose desire to restrict it was rooted in a concern to screen themselves. But officials (in both domestic and imperial contexts) often had a very different view, seeing the press as seditious, libellous, and destructive of authority. This tension existed both at home and abroad for much of the period.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document