Freedom of Press: Supreme Court Ruling?

Question

Has there ever been a case brought to the Supreme Court that ruled what the first amendment of Freedom of the Press meant?

To me it's always meant that the press has the Freedom to go anywhere they want.

I strongly believe that there needs to be a law that says they have to report both sides of an issue. For instance: Iraq. They report only the bad. Only soldiers know about the good we have done there.

I don't remember the numbers, but in the last 15yrs crime has consistently gone down, while the amount of crime reported has gone up. Leading the American people to believe things that just aren't true.

Answer 1

What's up Mopp,

Let me try my hand at your question, please.

About Supreme Court rulings -- they could literally fill your home -- there are THAT many.

About your statement about press freedoms. I'd like you to re-read your comments, because I think you'll discover that you've contradicted yourself. You say that the press should be able to "go anywhere they want," and yet you conclude by asking for enforced guidelines on how they do their jobs.

There are very, very, very few countries in the world that have the same kinds of freedoms as those which exist in the USA. And the reason is because a respect for Civil Liberties hurts like hell; and most people are unwilling to put up with the pain.

The French playwrite and philosopher, Voltaire once said, "I do not agree with what you've said; but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
THAT is the authentic voice of Civil Liberties.

Do you personally -- and I mean, YOU -- do YOU want to have the freedom to express your opinions? There's only one way to secure that liberty -- you MUST respect the rights of other people to express theirs -- no matter how biased, unfair or wrong you might think those views are. And standing there and listening to other people say and publish things that you think are slanted and just plain wrong is very painful -- so painful, in fact, that most nations won't tolerate it. And that is why these liberties are so rare.

So let's say that you win and get to force on others your views as to how the news should be reported. Today YOU win; but tomorrow, THEY'LL win, and force their interpretation on YOU.

Liberty is real bear to live with. It hurts, and it requires an enormous amount of internal constraint on all the citizens to allow those they hate to speak their minds. But the alternative is unthinkable. So my advice to you is (as they say in the army) "suck it up, and drive on, soldier."

Cheers, mate.

Answer 2

The idea of freedom of the press was born from the idea it is not wrong to criticize the king. If I were required to tell you both good and bad about the King in this writing, I would be required to tell you the good things he has done as well as the bad.
If I wanted to tell you how many he jailed because his subjects were not able to pay his taxes should I also be required to tell you he fed his captives that day? At the end of the argument it would look as if he took in a certain number of poor and fed them! Where is my argument against arresting those who cannot pay their taxes?

When in a debate, you can take only one side. If you are reporting a situation, you in good conscious tell the entire story. Unfortunately, how much cash can the reporter bring in for his corporation if he tells the entire truth?

Answer 3

The good we have done in Iraq? A once orderly sovereign nation that is now run amok? A once modern country that now has no running water, no electricity, no safety, no schools, very little health care, untold thousands of dead women, children and men, no civil order, etc. It is now, thanks to our unlawful interference an uncivil country engaged in a civil war.

Yes, both sides should be reported. We should be allowed to see the caskets of our dead soldiers coming home in boxes to be buried in the ground. We should be told how much the world is against us now and even hate us. We should be told that Bush is breeding more terrorists daily by his evil war-mongering ways. We should be told the truth.

The only good we have done is to make Bush and his oil buddies rich beyond their wildest imagination. Get a grip.

Answer 4

The fact that the newspaper implies things that aren't true is not enough to take action against them.

Even if the newspaper reports something that is 100% false, they cannot be held liable for it unless actual malice is proved. Mere recklessness (such as not checking the facts out) is not enough.

Answer 5

I think that would be a bad idea to try and control the press. People tend to focus on the bad side of things anyway so it doesn't make much difference imho.

Answer 6

Lord Yes..I dont have the rulings .com but there have been literally hundreds of rulings,mostly for the newpapers and tabloids...some TV stuff too..you can say this,you cant say that....