Freedom of the
Press
By: Karen Gray & Richelle Byrd
Freedom of the press- The right of the media to print, or
otherwise disseminate, speech, ideas and opinions without fear or harm
of prosecution as long as said material does not interfere with another citizen’s
freedoms
Applies to:
•Print media (newspapers and magazines)
•Broadcast media (radio stations, television stations, television
networks)
•Internet-based media (World Wide Web pages, webblogs)
First Amendment:
•Text: “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 peaceably to assemble,
and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
•Original meaning: Originally the right of freedom of the press included in
the First Amendment only applied to the federal government.
•Current: However, after the ratification of the 14th Amendment and the
Near v. Minnesota court case, it was expanded to include the states as well.
Evolution:

Although the Constitution contained a clause for freedom of the press in the Bill of Rights,
the government originally set many controls on the press and quieted the opinions of most
early journalists. Later, the First Amendment was put on the back burner when the federal
government muzzled the press through the use of the Sedition Act of 1798, which made any
speech or writings against the U.S. government unlawful. This was a clear violation of the
First Amendment, however, fear spurred the government to pass the law until its expiration
in 1801. Prior to the 1930s, the Supreme Court position on First Amendment freedoms was
to suspend free speech and press if the expressions constituted a “reasonable tendency” to
endanger society. These expressions were judged by whether they created a “clear and
present danger” to society. After the 1931 Near v. Minnesota Case, restrictions on freedom
of the press were severely limited and the liberty greatly expanded. Since that time, freedom
of the press has continued to expand and now applies to all states with only limitations that
pose a threat to national security as determined by the supreme court. Newspaper
journalists seem to have gained advantages over their colleagues in the broadcast media.
The broadcast press has remained closely scrutinized by government. Policy makers and
the courts justify restrictions by arguing that the airwaves used to broadcast the news are a
limited commodity and not readily available to each individual to gain access to. This was
the reasoning given by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Supreme
Court in its 1969 decision, which upheld the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine, in
Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC. However, in 1987, the FCC abolished the fairness doctrine
and there have been several attempts to pass legislation that will make the FFC decision
permanent.
The Zenger
Trial
The Bill of
Rights
Near v.
Minnesota
1737
1791
1931
1776
The Virginia
Declaration of
Rights
1868
14th
Amendment
Red Lion
Broadcasting
Company v.
FCC
1969
1957
Roth v.
United States
Branzburg v.
Hayes
1972
1971
1987
New York v. FCC abolished
the fairness
United States
doctrine
Near v. Minnesota




Background: In 1931, Jay M. Near published a story in The Saturday
Press in which he attacked public officials on the notion that they were
associated with gangsters. Minnesota officials obtained an injunction
preventing Near from publishing his newspaper under a state law that
prevented the publication of “scandalous and defamatory” newspapers.
Amendment: Did the Minnesota “gag law” violate the First
Amendment.
Court decision: The state law was determined unconstitutional. The
supreme court held that, except in rare cases - during wartime, the
publication of sailing dates of transports or number and location of
troops-, censorship is unconstitutional. Also, the First Amendment is
incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment and therefore applies to the
states. This strengthened the notion that a prior restraint of the press
violates the First Amendment.
Subsequent legislation: This case was later a key precedent in New
York Times v. United States.
New York Times v. United States



Background: In 1971, the Nixon Administration tried to
prevent the New York Times and Washington Post from
publishing classified information from “The Pentagon Papers”
regarding the history of US involvement in Vietnam. The
president argued that prior restraint was necessary to protect
national security.
Amendment: Did the threat to national security outweigh the
freedom of the press guaranteed by the First Amendment?
Court decision: Although the justices thought that the New
York Times had probably gone too far in publishing the Pentagon
Papers, they found nothing in the law to prevent the newspaper
from doing so. The court ruled in favor of the New York Times,
and a majority held that the First Amendment was absolute. This
decision reinforced the Court’s stance on prior restraint and
showed that they would not censor the press on order of the
federal government.
Roth v. United States



Background: This was two combined cases. In 1957, Samuel
Roth, who ran a literary business in New York was convicted
under federal statute for sending “obscene” materials through
the mail. In its companion case, Alberts v. California, David
Alberts was convicted under a California statute for publishing
pictures of “scantily-clad women.”
Amendment: Did the federal or California obscenity
restrictions infringe upon the First Amendment.
Court decision: The court held that obscenity was not “within
the area of constitutionality that protected speech or press.” In
other words, obscenity was not protected by the First
Amendment. Also, the court redefined what constitutes obscene
material as any material “utterly without redeeming social
importance.” And the test to determine obscenity was "whether
to the average person, applying contemporary community
standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole
appeals to prurient interest.” So, instead of basing a judgment on
how it might influence the most susceptible people, judgment is
based on community standards.
Branzburg v. Hayes




Background: In 1972, Paul Branzburg wrote two articles concerning drug use in
Kentucky. His sources requested to remain confidential, but Branzburg was
subpoenaed before a grand jury and ordered to name his sources. He refused,
citing privilege under the Press Clause, and was held in contempt.
Amendment: Is the requirement that news reporters appear and testify before
state or federal grand juries an abridgement of the freedoms of speech and press
as guaranteed by the First Amendment?
Court decision: The court ruled against the existence of reportorial privilege in
the Press Clause of the First Amendment. Justice Byron White declared that the
petitioners were asking the Court "to grant newsmen a testimonial privilege that
other citizens do not enjoy.” The fact that reporters receive information from
sources in confidence does not privilege them to withhold that information
during a government investigation. However, White did establish a test citing
whether a reporter can be compelled to testify before a grand jury. Basically, the
government must show a substantial relation between the information sought
and overriding state interest.
Subsequent history: While he sided with the majority, justice Powell
emphasized that the asserted claim to privilege should be judged on its facts.
Powell's opinion has been interpreted by several lower courts as an indication
that reportorial privilege does indeed exist, but was simply not warranted in the
specific case of Branzburg. Its application depends on two factors: (1) that the
information sought was crucial to a litigant's case and (2) that the information
could not be acquired from any other source.
Red Lion Broadcasting Company v. Federal
Communications Commission




Background: The FCC’s fairness doctrine requires radio ad television
broadcasters to present a balanced and fair discussion of public issues on the
airwaves. In 1969, the FCC declared that the Red Lion Broadcasting Company
had failed to meet its obligation when it ran a program that constituted a
personal attack on a journalist named Fred J. Cook. The FCC ordered the
company to send a transcript of the broadcast to Cook and provide reply time.
Amendment: Do the FCC's fairness doctrine regulations, concerning personal
attacks made in the context of public issue debates and political editorializing,
violate the First Amendment's freedom of speech guarantees?
Court decision: The Court held that the FCC’s fairness doctrine regulations
enhanced rather than infringed the freedoms guaranteed by the First
Amendment. Because there is a finite number of broadcast frequencies, the
Court ruled that licensed broadcasters are obliged to present a variety of views
on all subjects covered in their programming. This decision provided the FCC
with more regulatory power.
Subsequent legislation: In 1987, the FCC abolished the Fairness Doctrine in
the Syracuse Peace Council decision, which was upheld by a different panel of
the Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit in February 1989.
United States v. American Library
Association




Background: In 2000, Congress passed the Children’s Internet
Protection Act, requiring public libraries to install internet filtering
software on their computers in order to receive federal funding. The
American Library Association challenged the law, claiming it violated
the First Amendment rights of their patrons. The Pennsylvania District
Court ruled that CIPA was indeed unconstitutional. The case was then
appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
Amendment: Does the use of internet filtering software violate Frst
Amendment rights?
Court decision: The Court reversed the district court’s decision and held
that, because filtering software does not violate their patrons’ First
Amendment rights, CIPA does not require libraries to infringe upon the
constitution and is a valid exercise of Congress’s spending power. The
Supreme court explained that the internet is simply another means of
garnering information in a school or library and is no more than an
extension of the book stack.
You have hit a bump in the road…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dOOFB8fs38&feature=related
JFK Conspiracy Speech
The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we
are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to
secret oaths and to secret proceedings. For we are opposed around the
world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on
covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead
of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of
free choice. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material
resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that
combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and
political operations.
Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not
headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is
questioned, no secret is revealed. That is why the Athenian lawmaker
Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. I am
asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the
American people. For I am confident that with your help man will be what
he was born to be: free and independent.
http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=251&year=2009