Press Freedom

In the United States, press freedom is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This right of free speech encompasses both print and electronic media and is designed to ensure that media organizations have the ability to gather and distribute knowledge and ideas without government censorship or restrictions.

The idea of an independent press that is free from government control is embraced as a means to keep the public informed of government activities. The press has long been considered a fourth branch of the government alongside the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. In order to maintain the public's interest, media organizations must be able to keep watch over the actions of the government in an unencumbered manner.

Press freedom came to the forefront not long after the printing press was invented and the mass distribution of ideas suddenly became a reality. In England, a royal proclamation required that all publications obtain a license from the monarchy prior to publication. This attempt at licensure of the press was essentially an attempt by the government to censor the content of what was printed. In 1644, John Milton published Areopagiticia: A Speech for the Liberty of Unlicensed Printing to the Parliament of England, in which he argued for and defended a free press. Milton argued that censorship was unnecessary in a free society and that all points of view should be heard because truth would ultimately prevail. In 1695, licensing laws were abolished in England.

In the United States, during colonial times, the press was censored by the British government. Prior to being printed, newspapers were required to obtain approval from the government. Once government approval was obtained, the newspapers were stamped with an official approval notice. In 1735, a landmark trial occurred in which press freedom was defended. John Peter Zenger was the publisher of the New York Weekly Journal and was an outspoken critic of Governor William Cosby of the Province of New York. Cosby accused Zenger of libelous statements and using seditious language. Libelous statements damage an individual's reputation, while seditious statements are considered to encourage revolt against the government. In the trial, the jury did not convict Zenger and therefore established the precedent that if printed material is factual it cannot be considered libelous or seditious.

An essential aspect of free speech rights for the press is that prior restraint by the government is prohibited. In 1931, the Supreme Court ruled in Near v. Minnesota that there was a constitutional guaranty of press freedom. In the Near case, the Supreme Court asserted that it was in the public's best interest to have a free and unrestrained press than to have government suppression. The Supreme Court argued that instances of press freedom abuses should be dealt with after the fact through established legal procedures rather than through prior restraint.

There are rare exceptions when prior restraint may be allowed, including whenever the following information is involved: (a) information that would interfere with war efforts, (b) information that would incite acts of violence, and (c) information that is defined as obscene. The Supreme Court noted that there was a difference between restrictions that are aimed at the content of the expression versus restrictions aimed at the avenue of the expression. For example, the Supreme Court ruled that time, place, and manner restrictions are permitted. In order for a government action that restricts expression to [Page 645]be considered content neutral by the courts, the restriction must not be based on personal partiality or personal interpretation. The restriction must be applied equally in all situations.

...