What is meant by the Courts guaranteeing the press protection from prior restraint? If you set up a website, are you personally protected under First Amendment freedom of the press, or is it reserved for journalists? Can newspapers protect confidential news sources?
2006-09-20 06:53:48 · 12 answers · asked by pnoiz1 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
boy is that a can of worms.
it is my theory that there should be no special protection for journalists, because that implies a condition that must be met before someone is entitled to their first amendment right. free speech is something we are all entitled to... the phrase free press doesn't imply a free press corps but the ability to publish your words.
you should not need to rely on a corporate protection when disseminating truth. but these are battles that must be fought still, the law does not answer the questions you've asked clearly. judith miller did something peculiar when she went to jail to protect a source who came forward himself... she claimed she was protecting a source, but if he came forward he obviously wasn't feeling threatened. i hope she was being truthful, but all i have is her word.
that's all we've ever got. make sure you use yours for something worthwhile, because i honestly have no idea how protected we are. especially when you say prior restraint... are you planning on copying something? libel?
2006-09-20 06:56:56 · answer #1 · answered by uncle osbert 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Freedom of the press is a myth. As an individual, you can write whatever you like, provided it is your opinion. If you claim something as fact, you may need to qualify your statement.
Newspapers can and do protect confidential sources.
Ajournalist doesn't have to be professional to be considered a journalist, so I see no problem with that person's writing being protected regardless of where it is published.
Freedom of the press is a myth in the sense that press organisations censor their writers/content. If freedom of the press were a reality, newspapers and other written media would be presenting many different viewpoints, rather than rehashing the same point made by many different writers.
2006-09-20 07:11:57 · answer #2 · answered by soobee 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Freedom of the press???? Wow!!! That sure used to mean something different, didn't it? At one time it meant that the press could not be silenced by the government.
Now it means that government cronies can buy up all the media and they are free to saturate the American public in propaganda.
Oh, well. Easy come, easy go. Maybe some day there will be freedom again, of the press and of the people.
2006-09-20 07:07:52 · answer #3 · answered by beast 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are certain forms of speech that are not protected such as hate speech and speech inciting violence towards others. Journalists have to follow these rules too. The freedom of the press refers more to them being allowed to report on the government in a negative light if that is the truth. And, anyone can do that, but the press has extra protection because their publications are more widely distributed and affect more people.
2006-09-20 07:03:09 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Freedom Of The Press Is Limited To Those Who Own Them.
A.J. Liebling
2006-09-20 06:58:11 · answer #5 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
As with all freedoms it comes with responsibility. Not just to the reader/viewer of the press but to society as a whole. Currently there is no system to check what impact a story will have as a society as a whole. We leave it up to the reporter/editor who have their own agendas to protect and not society.
2006-09-20 07:00:27 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
As long as what you say is truth then you shouldn't get into trouble for it. But that doesn't mean that you shouldn't report responsibly. Like if you know of a secret plan the government has to take over another government that has been known to be violent towards us, you should think twice before reporting it, unless you know it to be an illegal maneuver.
2006-09-20 07:04:00 · answer #7 · answered by FaerieWhings 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In my opinion this is the most abused of the first ten amendments. Free speech is not limited to publishing giants, who today control very much of what you'll see and/or read.
You are not allowed to shout "fire" in a crowded theater - unless, you do it metaphorically as a reporter or commentator, then later issue or print a small retraction notice.
A lie by omission is as dangerous as by commission.
But very few countries can allow it - we're one of them.
2006-09-20 07:19:46 · answer #8 · answered by whoknew 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Freedom of the press no longer truly exists. Major corporations and big government decide what is released. As long as you're publishing pro-government pieces, you should be okay.
2006-09-20 07:18:02 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is pretty sad the way the main stream media manipulate the information.
Most americans don't even know where in a map is Irak located!
Obviuusly they won't undersatnd the reassons of conflict neither.
2006-09-20 06:57:06 · answer #10 · answered by Omar 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋