Priča

Sloboda tiska

Sloboda tiska



We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Sloboda tiska - pravo izvještavanja o vijestima ili širenje mišljenja bez cenzure od strane vlade - smatrani su od strane utemeljitelja Sjedinjenih Država "jednim od velikih bedema slobode". Amerikanci uživaju slobodu tiska kao jedno od prava zajamčenih Prvim amandmanom. Nove tehnologije, međutim, stvorile su nove izazove za slobodu medija.

Prvi amandman, koji štiti slobodu tiska, usvojen je 15. prosinca 1791. kao dio Povelje o pravima.

Zakon o pravima osigurava ustavnu zaštitu određenih individualnih sloboda, uključujući slobodu tiska, slobodu govora, slobodu vjeroispovijesti i pravo okupljanja i podnošenja predstavki vladi.

Podrijetlo slobodnog tiska

Prije nego što je trinaest kolonija proglasilo neovisnost od Velike Britanije, britanska vlada pokušala je cenzurirati američke medije zabranivši novinama objavljivanje nepovoljnih informacija i mišljenja.

Jedan od prvih sudskih sporova koji se tiču ​​slobode medija u Americi dogodio se 1734. Britanski guverner William Cosby pokrenuo je tužbu za klevetu protiv izdavača The New York Weekly Journal, John Peter Zenger, za objavljivanje komentara koji kritiziraju Cosbyjevu vladu. Zenger je oslobođen.

Katonova pisma

Ideali američkog slobodnog tiska mogu se pratiti od Catovih Lettera, zbirke eseja koji kritiziraju britanski politički sustav, a koji su objavljeni u predrevolucionarnoj Americi.

Eseje su napisali Britanci John Trenchard i Thomas Gordon. Objavljeni su pod pseudonimom Cato između 1720. i 1723. (Cato je bio državnik i otvoreni kritičar korupcije u kasnoj Rimskoj Republici.) Eseji su prozivali korupciju i tiraniju u britanskoj vladi.

Generaciju kasnije, Catonova su pisma često citirana u novinama u američkim kolonijama kao izvor revolucionarnih političkih ideja.

Virginia je bila prva država koja je formalno zaštitila tisak. U Deklaraciji prava iz Virginije iz 1776. godine navedeno je: "Sloboda tiska jedna je od najvećih uporišta slobode i nikada je ne mogu sputavati despotske vlade."

Više od desetljeća kasnije, predstavnik Virginije (i kasnije predsjednik Sjedinjenih Država) James Madison posudio bi se iz te deklaracije pri izradi Prvog amandmana.

Sloboda medija i nacionalna sigurnost

1971., vojni analitičar Sjedinjenih Država Daniel Ellsberg dao je kopije povjerljivih dokumenata The New York Times. Dokumenti, koji će postati poznati kao Pentagonovi dokumenti, detaljno opisuju strogo povjerljivu studiju Ministarstva obrane o američkom političkom i vojnom angažmanu u Vijetnamu od 1945. do 1967. godine.

Dokumenti Pentagona razotkrili su vladino znanje da će rat koštati više života nego što je javnosti rečeno i otkrili su da su predsjedničke administracije Harryja Trumana, Dwighta D. Eisenhowera, Johna F. Kennedyja i Lyndona B. Johnsona obmanjivale javnost o stupanj američke uključenosti u Vijetnam.

Vlada je dobila sudski nalog kojim se sprječava The New York Times iz objavljivanja više ulomaka iz novina, tvrdeći da su objavljeni materijali prijetnja nacionalnoj sigurnosti. Nekoliko tjedana kasnije, američka vlada pokušala je blokirati objavljivanje radova u Washington Post također, ali sudovi su ovaj put odbili.

U New York Times Co. protiv Sjedinjenih Država, Vrhovni sud presudio je u korist novina, što je omogućilo The New York Times i Washington Post objavljivati ​​sadržaj Pentagonovih dokumenata bez rizika daljnje vladine cenzure.

Bivši zaposlenik CIA -e, Edward Snowden, 2013. je procurio povjerljive dokumente iz Uprave za nacionalnu sigurnost u novine u Velikoj Britaniji, Sjedinjenim Državama i Njemačkoj. Njegovo je curenje otkrilo nekoliko vladinih programa nadzora i pokrenulo globalnu raspravu o špijuniranju vlade.

Neki su osudili Snowdena kao izdajicu, dok su drugi podržali njegove postupke, nazvavši ga uzbunjivačem i pobornikom slobode medija.

Sloboda tiska diljem svijeta

2017. neprofitna organizacija sa sjedištem u SAD-u, Freedom House, otkrila je da samo 13 posto svjetske populacije uživa u slobodnom tisku-medijskom okruženju u kojem je izvještavanje o političkim vijestima robusno i necenzurirano, a sigurnost novinara zajamčena.

Deset najlošije ocijenjenih zemalja i teritorija na svijetu su: Azerbajdžan, Krim, Kuba, Ekvatorijalna Gvineja, Eritreja, Iran, Sjeverna Koreja, Sirija, Turkmenistan i Uzbekistan.

Sjedinjene Američke Države rangirale su 37 od 199 zemalja i teritorija po slobodi tiska u 2017. Norveška, Nizozemska i Švedska bile su zemlje s najvišim rangiranjem.

IZVORI

Podrijetlo slobode govora i tiska; Maryland Law Review.
Sloboda tiska 2017 .; Freedom House.


"Sloboda tiska u Americi malih gradova"

Ovo nije knjiga o slobodi tiska, već je autor vidi kao primjer slobode tiska. Najveći dio knjige sastoji se od odabranih tjednih kolumni ili onih koji se nalaze u Časopis-kurir iz Jacksonvillea, Illinois između studenog 2009. i listopada 2018. Dopunjeni su dijelovima koje je autor napisao za popis prijatelja i suradnika prije datuma početka i nakon datuma zatvaranja. Svaki dio ima kratak uvod. Ovo je liberalno mišljenje koje su objavile konzervativne novine u malom gradu. Steve Hochstadt je Židov koji je odrastao u predgrađu srednje klase na Long Islandu u New Yorku. Predavao je povijest na Bates Collegeu u Maineu prije nego što se preselio na Illinois College u Jacksonvilleu u ruralnom Illinoisu. Čini se da je autor iznenađen što je devet godina mogao objaviti svoja liberalna mišljenja u konzervativnom ruralnom Illinoisu. Iako je dobio pisane izraze odvratnosti, nikada nije bio verbalno zlostavljan niti mu je prijetio kada se upuštao u ovu malu zajednicu.

Ipak, u isto vrijeme, priznaje da je & ldquona & iumlve & rdquo pretpostavljao da bi mogao promijeniti javno mnijenje iznoseći nekoliko činjenica svaki tjedan u novinama. Čini se da to nije uspjelo. Okrug Morgan, čije je sjedište okrug Jacksonville, glasao je 62 do 65 posto republikanaca za predsjednika na svim izborima 2004.-2020., S jednom iznimkom. Godine 2008. John McCain nosio je okrug Morgan za manje od jedan posto. Volio bih da je autor nagađao zašto.

Hochstadt je ipak donekle povukao udarce u objavljenim kolumnama. Uvodi i neobjavljeni članci sadrže oštrije negativne ocjene konzervativnih (i republikanskih) politika i stajališta. Također je prilično često pisao o nepolitičkim temama i obiteljskim praznicima, vrtlarstvu, psima, godišnjim dobima i sportskim ličnostima, posebno o Jackie Robinson i Mohammedu Aliju.

Autor je pošten, pristojan, pošten, velikodušan, razuman i dobrotvoran čovjek. On sebe vidi kao autsajdera u Americi, dijelom i zato što je njegov otac kao Židov morao pobjeći iz Beča u Austriju 1938. kako bi izbjegao naciste. Objavio je povijest holokausta u kojoj je, naravno, izgubio članove obitelji. Prijetnja tribalizmom u svakom ljudskom društvu nikada nije daleko od njegove svijesti.

On tvrdi da & ldquoMoj životni vijek mišljenja ovisi o rupi rođenja, mogućnosti zemljopisa i osobenostima obiteljskog života. & Rdquo (str. 118) Kako to da je recenzent, uglavnom njemačkog protestantskog podrijetla, odgojen na financijski nesigurna farma svinja u zapadnom Missouriju, slaže se s njim o gotovo svakoj temi o kojoj odluči raspravljati. Kad Hochstadt ustvrdi da mi je stalo do & ldquopolitičke ekonomije. & Rdquo (str. 381) i & ldquoKad republikanci okrenu svoje zlo oko prema sirotinji, razbolim se. & Rdquo (str. 214), ja sam pored njega dok sam na klimatske promjene, kontrola oružja, poštivanje znanosti, regulacija poslovanja, biračko pravo, zdravstvena zaštita, rasizam, anticionizam i mnoge druge teme kojima se bavi. Samo u ljubavi prema sportu i psima naša mišljenja se razlikuju. Mnogo sam se sramio zbog svoje nesigurnosti na školskom atletskom terenu, a obiteljski pas napao me kad sam imao oko 12 godina.

Dijelimo slična iskustva. Ja sam samo godinu dana stariji od Hochstadta i oboje smo stručno obrazovani u povijesti. I moj je otac morao napustiti svijet koji je najviše volio jer su ga gospodarski trendovi tjerali da napusti svoju malu obiteljsku farmu kad sam ja bio u srednjoj školi. Tako sam i ja bio skeptičan autsajder kada sam slušao američki korporativni kapitalizam i obećanja obilja. Oboje smo se suočili s nacrtom iz doba Vijetnama, iako sam ja bio izabran, a on je pobjegao s velikim brojem lutrije. Ipak, sve to nije dovoljno da se na zadovoljavajući način objasni naša politička sličnost, mada ni za mene ni za čitatelja, sumnja se.

Čitanjem ove knjige možete se osvrnuti na mnoge od najčešćih političkih briga koje su liberali imali u posljednjih desetak godina. Čovjek voli imati pojačano jedno & rsquos gledište. Ali ne mogu podijeliti autorov i optimizam u pogledu poboljšanja. Volio bih da mogu!

Ipak, u ovo doba ekstremnog političkog stranaštva, uživa se čitajući razmišljanja tako promišljenog i pristojnog čovjeka & mdasheven jednog od čvrstih političkih mišljenja.


Sloboda tiska

Odabrane reference

... govora i tiska, posebno jer ta sloboda dopušta informirani pristup informacijama i mišljenjima o političkim pitanjima. Čak i danas represivniji režimi priznaju ovo temeljno načelo, jer se njihova vladajuća tijela nastoje pobrinuti da sami postanu i ostanu informirani o onome što je ...

Iako ustav predviđa slobodu tiska, on se ne provodi uvijek, a neki su novinari prakticirali autocenzuru.

... a ustav osigurava slobodu tiska. Bengalske novine imaju relativno mali tiraž, što odražava nisku razinu pismenosti u zemlji. Nečitatelji su, međutim, još uvijek izloženi idejama i utjecaju tiska, jer se novine često čitaju naglas u skupinama. Iako…

Jedan od najdramatičnijih pokušaja vlade Sjedinjenih Država da primijeni prethodno (prije objavljivanja) suzdržavanje dogodio se u vezi s Dokumenti iz Pentagona (1971), „vrhunsko tajno“ višetomno izvješće o Vijetnamskom ratu koje je prikriveno dostavljeno raznim…

… Vjere, govora i tiska, te pravo na mirno okupljanje i peticiju. Druga jamstva u Povelji o pravima zahtijevaju pravične postupke za osobe optužene za kazneno djelo-poput zaštite od nerazumnog pretresa i oduzimanja, prisilne samooptužbe, dvostruke opasnosti i pretjerane kaucije-i jamstva brzog i javnog ...

... slobode govora, tiska, okupljanja i podnošenja predstavki - ovdje se raspravlja kao "sloboda izražavanja" - općenito štite izražavanje od vladinih ograničenja. Tako, na primjer, vlada ne smije zabraniti antiratni govor, govor koji veliča nasilje, rasistički govor, prokomunistički govor i slično. Ni

Sloboda je tiska progonjena i napadana sljedeća tri stoljeća, ali do kraja 18. stoljeća velika je sloboda osvojena u zapadnoj Europi i Sjevernoj Americi, a širok raspon tiskanih materijala bio je u opticaju.…

... na snazi ​​što je dodatno ograničilo slobode medija. Međutim, od 2000. došlo je do ublažavanja nekih zabrana. Jordan ima nekoliko književnih časopisa te znanstvenih i aktualnih časopisa. Radio i televizijske postaje u državnom vlasništvu prikazuju programe iz arapskih i zapadnih zemalja.

Ustav iz 1976. jamčio je slobodu tiska. Čitateljstvo dnevnih novina u Portugalu prilično je ograničeno, osobito izvan urbanih središta. Nacionalizacija industrije koja je započela 1974. obuhvatila je vodeće lisabonske novine koje su bile u vlasništvu banaka. Postupna reprivatizacija započela je 1979. Dnevni list Diário…

... žalili su se na nedostatak slobode medija u Venezueli.

... Konkretne građanske slobode nabrojane su uključivale slobodu tiska, slobodno vjeroispovijest i zabranu da se nikome ne oduzme sloboda osim po zakonu zemlje ili po presudi njegovih vršnjaka.

Podršku od strane

… Ponavljajući svoje stavove i pravo na njihovo objavljivanje. Prijetnje nasiljem mafije natjerale su ga da preseli svoj tisak preko rijeke Mississippi u Alton, u slobodnoj državi Illinois. Unatoč novom položaju, tisak su mu rulje nekoliko puta uništile u jednoj godini. Konačno, na…

... 1985. zagovarati slobodu tiska u cijelom svijetu. Nazvan u odnosu na međunarodnu medicinsku dobrotvornu organizaciju Liječnici bez granica, Reporteri bez granica (često se naziva francuskim akronimom, RSF) za svoj je rad dobio brojne nagrade, uključujući Nagradu Saharova Europskog parlamenta za slobodu misli 2005. godine.

... francuski poznanik koliko se sloboda tiska proširila u Engleskoj, rekao je: "Ne mogu reći, ali pokušavam saznati."

Suđenje

... o pravu novinara na slobodno izražavanje. Njegovo Politička kuća koju je Jack sagradio (1819), prvu i najpoznatiju u nizu satira koje je producirao s karikaturistom Georgeom Cruikshankom, naišao je u 54 izdanja, ali nije uspio zadržati Honea solventnim. Nakon njegovog zatvora uslijedio je bankrot (1828) zbog…

... prva važna pobjeda slobode medija u engleskim kolonijama Sjeverne Amerike.


2012. do danas: Proširenje naših pro bono pravnih usluga

Povjerenstvo za reportere imenovalo je Brucea Browna za svog izvršnog direktora 2012. Pod njegovim vodstvom, Odbor za reportere proširio je svoje usluge i resurse. Godine 2014. Brown je doveo Katie Townsend u izgradnju pro bono sudske prakse koja nudi izravno zastupanje novinarima i novinskim organizacijama. Naši odvjetnici sada rade na predmetima za pristup javnim evidencijama, pristupu sudu, pitanjima koja se tiču ​​lažnog predstavljanja novinara, i još mnogo toga.

Također smo proširili praksu uključivanjem rada s autorima dokumentarnih filmova i proširili napore na istraživanju sjecišta između tehnologije i Prvog amandmana. Mi smo također bili na čelu napora u suradnji sa saveznom vladom na učvršćivanju prava izvjestitelja na čuvanje povjerljivosti izvora. Nastavljamo agresivno tražiti prilike da govorimo u ime novinara i novinskih organizacija diljem naše robusne i rastuće prakse amicusa.

U posljednja četiri desetljeća Odbor za reportere odigrao je ulogu u gotovo svakom značajnom slučaju slobode medija koji se pojavio pred Vrhovnim sudom - uključujući Nebraska Press Association protiv Stuarta, SAD protiv Moussaouija, i Carpenter protiv SAD -a - kao i u stotinama slučajeva na saveznim i državnim sudovima koji utječu na prava novinara.

Od našeg osnutka niti jedan reporter nikada nije platio našu pomoć u obrani prava Prvog amandmana. To je bila vizija naših osnivača i naše najponosnije postignuće.


Povijest

Odbor izvjestitelja za slobodu tiska osnovan je 1970. godine u vrijeme kada su se nacionalni mediji#8217 suočili s valom vladinih sudskih poziva koji traže od novinara da imenuju povjerljive izvore.

Jedan slučaj posebno je pocinčao američke novinare. Reporter New York Timesa Earl Caldwell dobio je naredbu da federalnom velikom porotu otkrije svoje izvore u organizaciji Black Panther, prijeteći njegovoj neovisnosti kao gledatelju vijesti.

Caldwellova dilema potaknula je sastanak na sveučilištu Georgetown kako bi razgovarali o potrebi pružanja pravne pomoći novinarima kada se njihova prava iz Prvog amandmana nađu na udaru kritika. Među prisutnima, ili ubrzo nakon toga, bili su J. Anthony Lukas, Murray Fromson, Fred Graham, Jack Nelson, Ben Bradlee, Eileen Shanahan, Mike Wallace, Robert Maynard i Tom Wicker.

Oni su oformili odbor koji je djelovao honorarno i na vezicama (njegov prvi uredski ured bio je stol u presici na Vrhovnom sudu SAD-a). Uz podršku zaklada i novinskih organizacija, osnivači su izgradili osoblje i počeli zapošljavati odvjetnike koji će donirati njihove usluge.

Rani član Upravnog odbora- Jack C. Landau- bio je pravnik izvjestitelj koji je pratio Vrhovni sud. U slobodno vrijeme, Landau je pokrenuo Prvu telefonsku liniju za izmjene i dopune-prvu besplatnu uslugu 24 sata dnevno koja pruža besplatne pravne smjernice za novinare uključene u Prvi amandman i pitanja slobode informiranja-a također je novinarima pronašao besplatne odvjetnike uz pomoć člana Upravnog odbora Fred P. Graham, izvjestitelj-odvjetnik na Vrhovnom sudu.

U tim ranim danima volontiranja Landau je započeo i nekoliko drugih pravnih obrambenih i istraživačkih projekata koji su i danas ključni dijelovi aktivnosti Odbora. Među tim projektima bili su prvi časopis za tisak posvećen prikupljanju, indeksiranju i izvješćivanju o razvoju zakona o medijima, te prvi uslužni centar koji nudi besplatnu pomoć novinarima u saveznim i svim državnim javnim zapisima, uz pomoć urednika Philadelphia Inquirer Genea Robertsa.

Odbor je također pokrenuo kao neovisan, ali povezan projekt, Studentski pravni centar za tisak, prvi centar koji nudi besplatnu pravnu pomoć srednjoj školi i fakultetu, uz pomoć člana Upravnog odbora Jacka Nelsona. Landau je na kraju postao izvršni direktor Odbora s punim radnim vremenom.

Odbor je bio tužitelj u nekoliko ranih sudskih tužbi oslanjajući se na dobrovoljne odvjetnike iz velikih tvrtki u Washingtonu. Uključivali su tužbe za pristup 41 milijunu dokumenata Bijele kuće i kaseta koje je bivši predsjednik Nixon držao bivšem državnom tajniku Henryju Kissingeru, službene telefonske prijepise FBI -a o uhićenjima, kao i pokušaj da se telefonskim tvrtkama onemogući tajni pristup medijskim telefonskim zapisima .

Odvjetnica (i bivša novinarka) Jane E. Kirtley zamijenila je Landaua na mjestu izvršnog direktora 1985. Kirtley je bio odlučan u namjeri da osigura vrhunske i pouzdane resurse koji će pomoći novinarima da upoznaju zakonsku zaštitu i zamke dok su radili svoj posao. Tijekom njezina mandata Odbor je počeo izrađivati ​​opsežne vodiče za novinare, uključujući zbirku zakona o otvorenoj vladi u 50 država, sada poznatu kao “ & Vodič za otvorenu upravu. ” “Priručnik o prvim izmjenama ” pruža osnovne informacije o medijskom zakonu za redakcije i “Agents of Discovery ” ispitali su učestalost sudskih poziva koji se dostavljaju u američkim redakcijama.

Kirtley je također započeo popularan pravni program stipendiranja mladih odvjetnika koji krše zakon o medijima. Tijekom tih godina Odbor je postao i financijski stabilniji, čime je započela zadužbina koja sada iznosi više od 2,5 milijuna dolara.

Do trenutka kada je Lucy A. Dalglish preuzela dužnost izvršne direktorice 2000. godine, Odbor je trebao nadograditi svoju znatnu reputaciju. Nakon terorističkih napada 11. rujna 2001., Odbor je postao vodeći državni autoritet u naporima da se spriječi da važne informacije dođu do javnosti. Njegova izvješća “Homefront povjerljivo ” te web dnevnik "#Home of Homefront"#7521 mjerodavni su sažeci onoga što se dogodilo javnosti s pravom na znanje u svijetu nakon 11. septembra.

Dalglish je napustio Povjerenstvo za reportere u srpnju 2012.

Posljednjih godina Odbor je preuzeo vodeću ulogu u izgradnji koalicija s drugim organizacijama vezanim za medije kako bi zaštitio prava izvjestitelja da povjerljivo čuvaju izvore i da pazi na zakonodavne napore koji utječu na pravo javnosti da zna. Također je agresivno tražio mogućnosti da progovori diljem zemlje putem kratkih savjeta amicus curiae.

U posljednja četiri desetljeća Odbor je odigrao ulogu u gotovo svakom značajnom slučaju slobode medija koji je iznio pred Vrhovni sud — od Nebraska Press Association protiv Stuarta do US protiv Moussaouija —, kao i u stotinama slučajeva na saveznim i državnim sudovima.

Odbor se također pojavio kao glavni nacionalni-i međunarodni-resurs u pitanjima slobode govora, šireći informacije u različitim oblicima, uključujući tromjesečni pravni pregled, tjedni bilten, 24-satni telefonski broj i razne priručnike o pitanjima medijskog prava .

Akademici, državne i savezne agencije i Kongres redovito pozivaju Odbor i njegove odvjetnike na savjete i stručnost, a on je postao vodeći zagovornik interesa novinara za cyberspace.

Koliko su ove aktivnosti važne, primarna misija Odbora i dalje služi novinarima koji rade - njih više od 2.000 svake godine koji pozovu hitnu liniju, i deseci tisuća koji pristupaju našim mrežnim resursima. Od svog osnutka niti jedan izvjestitelj nikada nije platio pomoć Odbora u obrani prava Prvog amandmana. Ovo je utjelovljenje vizije osnivača i najponosnije postignuće Odbora.

Više o povijesti Odbora izvjestitelja iz:

  • Suosnivač Murray Fromson na 35. obljetnici
  • Jules Witcover, novinarski odbor#8220A koji radi, ” Columbia Journalism Review, svibanj/lipanj 1973
  • Floyd J. McKay, “Prvi amandman Guerillas: Formativne godine Odbora izvjestitelja za slobodu tiska, ” Monografije za novinarstvo, jesen 2004.(Ovaj se članak koristi s dopuštenjem AEJMC-a i nitko ga ne smije ponovno koristiti u cijelosti ili djelomično u bilo koju svrhu.)

Neadekvatnost slobode američkog tiska

Posljednjih godina odnos između prava prvog amandmana i američke demokracije postao je neriješen. Desetljećima je širok politički konsenzus pretpostavljao da je tisak slobodan od uplitanja vlade sine qua non demokratske slobode jači Prvi amandman značio bi jaču demokraciju. Zbog toga su prava Prvog amandmana danas zaštićenija nego ikad u američkoj povijesti. No, tisak je zahvaćena krizom. "Glavni mediji" redoviti su bičevi u populističkoj političkoj retorici. S padom prihoda od oglašavanja, novine su bile prisiljene otpustiti zaposlenike, ako ne i zatvoriti svoja vrata. U međuvremenu, novinski mediji pokušavali su izvijestiti o aktivnostima tajne sigurnosne države tijekom Rata protiv terorizma - kada izvori iznutra razmjenjuju takve informacije, riskiraju kazneni progon zbog nezakonitog curenja podataka. A od izbora 2016. strah od lažnih vijesti se povećao. Amerikanci pomnije proučavaju slobodni tisak koji su dugo lionizirali i ne sviđa im se osobito ono što vide.

Prije gotovo sto godina, mladi Walter Lippmann bio je na sličan način razočaran nacionalnim tiskom. 1919. u nizu članaka u Atlantika, bacio je cinično oko na senzacionalističke naslove komercijalnog tiska i porast ratne cenzure i propagande. U odlomcima koji danas zvuče poznato, brinuo se o porastu "pseudo okruženja izvještaja, glasina i nagađanja" i jadikovao kako je lako ta vijest proširila "zarazu nerazumnosti". Iako je Prvi amandman tek započeo svoj meteorski uspon u dvadesetom stoljeću-Oliver Wendell Holmes u svojoj je knjizi izložio modernu viziju slobode govora Abrams protiv Sjedinjenih Država neslaganje samo nekoliko tjedana ranije - Lippmann je već smatrao da je pravo na objavljivanje bez uplitanja države nedovoljno za suočavanje s problemima suvremenog tiska. Zapravo, Lippmann je smatrao da je zaštita prava na slobodno mišljenje i izražavanje manje važna od zaštite onoga što je nazvao „strujom vijesti“ na kojoj se temelje mišljenja. „Zaštita izvora mišljenja“, ubrzo je ustrajao Lippmann, „osnovni je problem demokracije. Sve ostalo ovisi o tome. ”[1]

Dok se idućih godina borio s ovim teškim problemom, sve konzervativniji Lippmann došao bi smanjiti svoja opredjeljenja za demokraciju, slobodu govora i potencijal javnog mnijenja. Do 1926. godine on je tvrdio da se "javnost mora staviti na svoje mjesto ... kako bi svatko od nas mogao živjeti oslobođen gaženja i urlanja zbunjenog stada." [2] Rane znakove slične političke putanje možemo vidjeti u suvremenom vremenu. strahovi od lažnih vijesti i sugestije da bi bilo moguće regulirati dezinformacije. No, mnogi drugi Amerikanci u dvadesetom stoljeću, zabrinuti zbog "toka vijesti" poput Lippmanna, na krize u tisku nisu odgovorili smanjivanjem vjere u Prvi amandman, već proširivanjem istih. Nastavili su tvrditi da demokratskiji tisak ne zahtijeva samo slobodu izražavanja, već i predanost onome što su neki nazvali "slobodom vijesti".

U ovom članku želim pogledati način na koji su reformatori tiska iz sredine stoljeća nastojali ublažiti dva nova problema koja su nam i danas ostala: konsolidacija poduzeća u industriji vijesti i porast državne tajne. Ove teme rijetko ulaze u našu povijest slobode medija, koja ostaje fokusirana prvenstveno na sudsku praksu Prvog amandmana koju je razvio Vrhovni sud. No ako pogledamo izvan sudova na šire političke i intelektualne rasprave o slobodi tiska, možemo pronaći i šire razumijevanje prava na slobodan tisak i složeniju priču o usponu modernog Prvog amandmana. Na taj način možemo pronaći bolji vodič za probleme s kojima se danas suočava sloboda američkog tiska.

Kad je krajem osamnaestoga stoljeća napisan Prvi amandman, tiskara se nije radikalno razlikovala od Gutenbergove, izmišljene stoljećima ranije. Tijekom sljedećeg stoljeća, međutim, tehnološki i gospodarski razvoj promijenili su tisak. Do prvih desetljeća dvadesetog stoljeća pojavila se novinska industrija, kojom dominiraju masovne, urbane novine s velikim tiražima. Budući da su bile privlačne oglašivačima, ove su novine imale potencijal biti vrlo profitabilne. No kako bi dosegli što veći broj čitatelja, bila su im potrebna velika ulaganja u proizvodnu i distribucijsku infrastrukturu. Novine su stoga sve više bile u vlasništvu bogatih izdavača, a kako su prihodi od oglašavanja stizali do najuspješnijih listova, manje su novine bile prisiljene zatvoriti.

Zbog toga je u prvim desetljećima dvadesetog stoljeća novinska industrija započela razdoblje konsolidacije koje se nastavilo do danas. Često mislimo da je pad novinske industrije započeo s porastom interneta, ali SAD su zapravo imale najveći broj novina 1909. Između 1919. i 1942., u vrijeme kada se stanovništvo povećalo za gotovo 30 posto, bilo je otprilike 15 posto smanjenja broja novina u zemlji. Ti papiri koji su ostali bili su sve monopolističkiji. Godine 1910. bilo je 689 gradova s ​​konkurentnim novinama do 1960., bilo ih je samo šezdeset. A te profitabilne, monopolističke novine često su se povezivale u lance i vodili su ih razmetljivo bogati novinski baruni koji su igrali veliku ulogu u američkom političkom životu. William Randolph Hearst bio je udžbenički slučaj.

U doba progresivnog i novog dogovora mnogi su ovaj pad novinske raznolikosti vidjeli kao pravi izazov slobodi tiska. Kritičari medija poput Uptona Sinclaira i Georgea Seldesa tvrdili su da ako mala skupina bogatih poslovnih ljudi posjeduje tisak i ovisi o prihodima od oglašavanja velikih korporacija, onda novine ne mogu biti uistinu demokratske niti izvještavati pošteno o ekonomskoj i radnoj krizi s kojom se nacija suočava. Tijekom depresije, kada su se novinski izdavači poput Hearsta i Roberta McCormicka pojavili kao reakcionarni protivnici New Deala, zabrinutost zbog nedemokratske prirode tiska dosegla je crescendo. Bojkotirani su i masovni sastanci u znak protesta protiv Hearsta, kojeg je Raymond Gram Swing nazvao jednim od "preteča američkog fašizma". [3] (Nije slučajno Građanin Kane, kulturno remek -djelo tog doba, uperilo je pogled na izdavača novina.) U izbornoj noći 1936. gomile pro -Franklina D. Roosevelta proslavile su ga Chicago Tribune izgradnju i paljenje dostavnog kamiona. U raspravi koja se emitirala na nacionalnoj razini 1939., ministar unutarnjih poslova New Deal -a, Harold Ickes, izjavio je da je "nedostatak slobodnog tiska najozbiljnija prijetnja s kojom se suočava naša demokratska vlada". Ickes je zaključio da ih je "veliko financijsko ulaganje" u novine "usko veže za poslovni svijet iz kojeg crpe svoju egzistenciju. Sloboda je nemoguća ... kad ured za prebrojavanje drži bič za ruku. ”[4] Teško je zamisliti kasnijeg člana kabineta koji tvrdi da je kapitalistička kontrola potkopala slobodu američkog tiska, ali to je bio sasvim drugačiji trenutak za populističko bijes protiv političkih pristranosti “mainstream medija”.

Novi trgovci nastojali su reformirati ekonomsku strukturu novinske industrije kako bi postojala veća raznolikost novina i veći raspon informacija mogao doći do javnosti. Kao dio Nacionalne uprave za oporavak, predložili su kodeks poštene trgovačke prakse za novinsku industriju s namjerom spriječiti velike novinske lance u diskriminaciji manjih listova. Aktivisti protiv oglašavanja povezani s Upravom za hranu i lijekove pokušali su zabraniti lažno oglašavanje, dijelom radi zaštite potrošača, ali i poništavanja ovisnosti novina o korporativnom kapitalizmu. Ministarstvo pravosuđa pokrenulo je antimonopolsku tužbu protiv žičane službe Associated Pressa (AP) u nastojanju da proširi novinsku raznolikost. (U to se vrijeme obično samo jedna novina po gradu mogla pretplatiti na AP, što je pravi nedostatak za one koji započinju nove novine.) Novi trgovci bili su predani građanski libertarijanci, pa su ti prijedlozi reformi prestali s naporima da se regulira sadržaj novine. No, tretirajući tisak kao industriju kao i svaku drugu, ipak su zamislili da bi neki oblik državne regulacije novinske ekonomije mogao biti neophodan za proizvodnju raznolikijeg i demokratičnijeg tiska.

Novinarska industrija snažno se protivila ovoj politici. Iza zatvorenih vrata lobirali su političare kako bi spriječili regulaciju. Predvođeni Elishom Hanson, općom savjetnicom Američkog udruženja izdavača novina, oni su javno tvrdili da su napori New Deala da se regulira tisak prekršili Prvi amandman i ugrozili slobodu američkog tiska. Ako su New Dealers regulirali ekonomiju tiska, Hanson je tvrdio 1943., ljudi iz “U.S. bit će suočeni baš kao što se današnji njemački narod suočava s tiskom koji kontrolira vlada. ”[5] Uglavnom zaboravljeni Hanson bio je stoga središnja osoba u povijesti Prvog amandmana-on je bio pionir u sada poznatoj upotrebi građanske slobode kao oruđe za sprečavanje ekonomske regulacije.

Tridesetih i četrdesetih godina prošlog stoljeća, u vrijeme kada su Amerikanci bili duboko zabrinuti zbog porasta totalitarizma, Hansonovi su argumenti uspjeli otupiti reformu tiska New Deal. Predloženi kodeks pravedne trgovačke prakse prepisan je u biti bez zuba, a mjere istine u oglašavanju radikalno su ublažene. Iako je Ministarstvo pravosuđa dobilo svoj slučaj protiv tržišnog natjecanja protiv AP -a, Vrhovni sud bio je toliko zabrinut zbog mogućeg miješanja u prava Prvog amandmana da je postavio uski presedan primjenjivosti zakona o zaštiti tržišnog natjecanja na tisak. Hansonovi argumenti toliko su uvjerili liberale u opasnosti državnog djelovanja da će nakon Drugoga svjetskog rata u tisku biti vrlo malo antitrustovskih akcija. When the Justice Department did dust off the AP precedent to try to block the merger of two newspapers in Tucson in the 1960s, the newspaper industry successfully lobbied the Nixon Administration for a formal exemption. Known as the Newspaper Preservation Act, this exemption began the late-twentieth century’s long wave of media deregulation.

In the second half of the twentieth century, therefore, America’s press was free from economic regulation. Economic consolidation continued as highly profitable monopoly newspapers hoarded advertising dollars and used those profits to buy their way into new markets, forming vast newspaper chains. Seeking to fund further expansion in the 1970s, many newspapers were listed on the stock exchange and began to take on debt. But as we now know, these empires were built on shaky foundations. When the media landscape diversified in the 1990s, advertising dollars evaporated. Fixated on maintaining profits, these publicly-listed businesses began to cut costs, particularly by slashing reportorial budgets. When that failed, they went out of business.

We can never know, of course, whether a different regulatory environment would have encouraged the newspaper industry to develop different, more sustainable, economic practices. But thinking about the economic history of the newspaper industry recasts the history of American press freedom. We normally assume that the public and the press share an interest in First Amendment rights and that the press needs to be free from state interference so that it can best inform the public. But once the press consolidated as a powerful industry, it was less clear whether the press and the public had the same interests. New Deal reformers, for instance, thought that the public interest in a diverse newspaper market might require state regulation of the press. But the newspaper industry successfully argued that such state regulation violated press freedom their economic freedoms were essential to democratic liberty. The result, as A. J. Liebling pithily put it in the 1960s, was that “freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one.”[6]

At roughly the same time that Americans lost interest in reforming the newspaper industry, they confronted a new challenge to press freedom—the rise of state secrecy. The pressures of World War II and the Cold War led to the construction of a vast new apparatus for keeping information secret from the public. In 1951, Harry Truman issued an executive order creating the modern classification system. We do not know exactly how much information has been classified since then—that is part of the point of a secrecy regime—but since the 1950s reviews of the system have routinely noted that it is bloated, classifying far more information than it should. In 2001 philosopher of science Peter Galison estimated that there were some 7.5 billion pages being kept secret, roughly the same number of pages as sit on the shelves of the Library of Congress. Today, between fifty and eighty million documents are classified each year.

In the 1950s and 1960s, in an effort to protect the public’s right to access information about their government, a freedom of information movement composed of journalists tried to roll back the secrecy regime. At first, they argued that the First Amendment right to a free press implied some right to access information. One of their leaders, Kentucky journalist James S. Pope, argued that “the right to speak out and to publish…requires implicitly the right to know.” But soon even Pope was forced to concede that “freedom of information is a will-o’-the-wisp among basic liberties.”[7] The courts have never recognized that the press has a Constitutional right of access to information.

Anti-secrecy activists instead turned to the legislature for relief and eventually succeeded in winning the passage of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) of 1966, an amendment to the Administrative Procedures Act. FOIA, which was revised in 1974, provides citizens with a right to receive information from the government and to go to court to enforce that right. But it was an inadequate tool for confronting the modern secrecy regime, as it exempted classified information from disclosure (as well as eight other categories of information, including internal policy deliberations). FOIA, in other words, did not challenge or reform the classification system, but rather deferred to it. Courts have subsequently been highly deferential to state claims that material is exempt from FOIA. That fact, combined with regular delays in processing requests, means that FOIA has not been helpful for journalists working on deadline. Instead, it has been used more successfully by corporations looking to glean information about regulations and contracts, as well as historians. The freedom of information movement did not succeed in its efforts to include the right to access information as one of the rights of a free press.

More broadly, Americans do not believe that the classification system interferes with the rights of a free press. This is because the classification system censors information at the source, leaving the press free to publish classified information it can get its hands on. As the Pentagon Papers decision made clear, the press has a First Amendment right to publish even classified information. But government employees do not have a First Amendment right to leak information. Daniel Ellsberg, for example, was only spared jail time for leaking the Pentagon Papers because the case was thrown out after the Nixon administration formed a small group—the plumbers—and broke into Ellsberg’s psychiatrist’s office. And as Thomas Drake, Chelsea Manning, John Kiriakou, Edward Snowden, and other targets of the “War on Whistleblowers” have learned, leaking national security information carries severe penalties. But because the newspapers that publish their disclosures are free from reprisal, the classification system is seen as compatible with First Amendment guarantees of press freedom.

As a result, the press relies on off-the-record disclosures to provide the public access to classified information. Leaks are habitual in American government, but they provide a poor guarantee of the public’s right to information. The fact that it remains illegal to leak classified information to the press means that government employees are disinclined to leak without at least tacit approval from the administration. A reliance on leaks and insider access creates press dependence on officials and anonymous sources, which undermines the autonomy of journalists to criticize government policy, makes it hard for the public to assess the accuracy and provenance of leaked information, and can lead to government manipulation of the news (think of weapons of mass destruction in the lead-up to the Iraq War). In other words, while the press retains its freedom to publish, the failure to confront the secrecy regime has undermined the public’s ability to access information.

The crises that beset the press today are a direct consequence of this longer history of press freedom. The rise of the internet created more opportunities for Americans to circulate their own opinions while simultaneously undermining the economic system that had paid for the reporting of new information. The result was the creation of a vacuum, into which flooded clickbait, fake news, and endless commentary. Meanwhile, important information about national security affairs only leaks out in partial form. The ongoing Russian investigation provides, in miniature, a parody of the process—the security branches and the president’s team issue statements without evidence the public is asked only to trust the authority of these various leakers.

When we think only about the freedoms of the press and speech, it is tempting to try to solve these problems by scaling back our commitment to the First Amendment. Why protect the rights of purveyors of fake news? But when we refocus our attention on the problems of public access to information, it is possible to maintain our commitment to First Amendment rights. The real challenge is not to drive bad information out of the polity, to ensure that citizens do not consume false news or bad opinions—a quixotic goal that could only lead to censorship. The challenge is rather to ensure that important information is available to the public. Initiatives for greater transparency would help: rolling back the runaway classification system, providing protections for national security whistleblowers, and reforming FOIA. Dedicated efforts to fund new initiatives in reporting would help as well. Whether that money comes from philanthropists, from discerning subscribers, or (less likely) from public funds, the key is that the money flows to those breaking news about policy, local governance, and social problems—money should not be siphoned off to support hot takes.

Over the course of the twentieth century, Americans provided the press unprecedented freedom to publish what it wanted, but did not build equally robust protections for the public’s right to access information. Today, Americans are once again beginning to realize that freedom of the press alone cannot produce a democratic media. The task now is to protect and revitalize the public’s ability to access high-quality information, what Walter Lippmann once called the “stream of news.”

Autor

Sam Lebovic is Assistant Professor of History at George Mason University, where he also directs the history Ph.D. program and serves as Associate Editor of the Časopis za društvenu povijest. On je autor knjige Free Speech and Unfree News: The Paradox of Press Freedom in America (2016), which was awarded the 2017 Ellis Hawley Prize by the OAH.

Bilješke

[1]Walter Lippmann, Liberty and the News (1920 2008), 33, 37, 41.

[2]Walter Lippmann, The Phantom Public: A Sequel to “Public Opinion” (1927), 155.

[3]Raymond Gram Swing, Forerunners of American Fascism (1935), 134–152.

[4]“Ickes and Gannett Debate Free Press,” New York Times, Jan. 13, 1939, p. 14.

[5]Elisha Hanson, “Says AP Ruling will Lead to Regulation of the Press,” Editor and Publisher, Nov. 13, 1943, p. 8.

[6]A. J. Liebling, The Press (1961 1975), 8, 32.

[7]“Moss Committee Vital to Public Information,” Editor and Publisher, Jan. 26, 1957, p. 62 James S. Pope, “Freedom is Indivisible,” Nieman Reports, 7 (Jan. 1953), 31.,


How Freedom of the Press Works

Freedom of speech is anything but a modern concept. For thousands of years, humans have wrestled with the idea of allowing other people to speak their minds as they wish.

In 399 B.C.E., Socrates was put to death for daring to question Roman religious practices. In 1633, Galileo was harassed by the Spanish Inquisition for claiming that the sun did not revolve around the Earth.

Since then freedom of speech has evolved in myriad ways. But it's so vital to modern life that in the ashes of World War II, the United Nations saw fit to enshrine the ideal in the 1948 Declaration of Human Rights: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference, and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers."

Within this declaration is an implication of a free press. (The UN's resolution 59 takes this even further by saying freedom of information is a fundamental human right.) People ought to be able to express their ideas through any form. However, there's a key difference between freedom of govor and freedom of the pritisnite. Freedom of speech means that you can express your opinions without being punished. Freedom of the press is about distribution — you can publish and disseminate news and opinions without fear of intervention and retaliation.

Many countries include press privileges in their governmental framework. Some back it up. Others do not [source: World Democracy Audit]. In the U.S., freedom of the press is enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution and reads as follows:

"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" [source: Constitute Project].


UNESCO, in keeping with its Constitution, advocates the basic human right of freedom of expression, enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and its corollary, press freedom. Indeed, since its creation in 1945, UNESCO has been called upon to “promote the free flow of ideas by word and image”, and the Organization’s Member States have repeatedly confirmed this mandate over the years in decisions adopted by the General Conference, the highest authority of the United Nations agency. UNESCO promotes freedom of expression and freedom of the press as a basic human right.

Public’s right of access to information

A free press is not a luxury that can wait for better times rather, it is part of the very process which can bring about better times. Freedom of the press should not be viewed solely as the freedom of journalists to report and comment. It is strongly correlated with the public’s right of access to knowledge and information. Communication often acts as a catalyst for the development of civil society and the full exercise of free expression enables all parts of society to exchange views and find solutions to social, economic and political problems. Free media play a crucial role in building consensus and sharing information, both essential to democratic decision-making and to social development.

In keeping with this mandate UNESCO has been working with professional organizations, and a wide range of governmental, as well as non-governmental partners, on several fronts to build up, support and defend free, independent and pluralistic media in developing countries, countries in transition and in conflict and post conflict areas.

UNESCO maintains close relations with regional and international media organizations and press freedom advocacy groups. One of its major partners is the electronic clearing-house and alert network, IFEX, which groups 500 member organizations in 130 countries. Since 1992, IFEX has facilitated the sharing of information about press freedom and the efficiency of reactions to cases of violations.

Professional training for journalists

UNESCO recognizes that media independence and freedom of information do not hinge only on the capacity of private individuals to operate media outlets it also requires a commitment to professional standards of reporting. Thus UNESCO’s work includes advocacy, professional training for journalists and media professionals, and support for professional networks, as well as providing governments with advice and information on best practices regarding media legislation and regulation.

Svjetski dan slobode medija

Amidst the growing recognition of the importance of press freedom for democracy and development, in 1993 the United Nations General Assembly proclaimed that May 3 is “World Press Freedom Day”. Throughout the world, this Day serves as an occasion to celebrate press freedom, raise awareness of violations against the right to freedom of expression and draw attention to the work of all too many journalists forced to brave death or jail to bring people their daily news. It is also on World Press Freedom Day that UNESCO awards the annual UNESCO/Guillermo Cano World Press Freedom Prize to a journalist who has distinguished him or herself in the fight for press freedom.

UNESCO is increasingly being asked to assist, together with the other United Nations system organizations, funds and programmes, in seeking solutions in conflict prevention, emergency assistance, and post-conflict peace-building. Freedom of the press, pluralism and independence of the media, and development of community newspapers and radio stations are crucial tothe re-establishment of social bonds and to the reconciliation process.

Assistance to Media in Conflict Situations

For several years now, UNESCO has been supporting independent media in conflict and post-conflict situations to enable them to gather and disseminate non-partisan information. In this respect, the assistance provided to independent media in Afghanistan, Angola, the Balkans, East Timor, the Great Lakes Region in Africa, Iraq, Liberia, the Middle East, Nepal, Sudan and elsewhere has contributed to peace building and reconciliation processes. This action in promoting independent media in conflict situations has been recognized by the international community. The humanitarian nature of this work was recognized by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the Department of Humanitarian Affairs in the June 1994 United Nations Inter-Agency Appeal. In 1996 the Appeal designated UNESCO as lead agency for assistance to independent media for the reconstruction period in the former Yugoslavia. Since then the Organization has received considerable financial support from a number of donor countries. In conflict areas, information is very often replaced by rumors and propaganda. UNESCO will therefore continue to support, together with the United Nations and professional organizations, local media whose independence of the parties to the conflict is acknowledged, which provide non-partisan information and which defend the values of peaceful coexistence and mutual understanding.


Importance Of A Free Press

A free press is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, but no right is truly guaranteed. Despite the United States’ historic role as a global champion of free speech, the nation often receives less-than-stellar marks when it comes to protecting the press (the United States is ranked only 45th out of 180 countries in a report on media freedom).

Freedom of the press is important because it plays a vital role in informing citizens about public affairs and monitoring the actions of government at all levels. While the media may be unpopular —43 percent of Americans say the media supports democracy “very poorly” or “poorly,” a Knight Foundation/Gallup report found — this role should not be forgotten.

To protect our rights, we must understand our rights. Here are four fundamental facts we should all remember about freedom of the press:

Media-bashing is as old as the nation itself. George Washington once referred testily to the “infamous scribblers” who covered his administration. But our revolutionary forefathers knew that when the press examines the actions of government, the nation benefits. News organizations expose corruption and cover-ups, deceptions and deceits, illegal actions and unethical behavior—and they hold our leaders and our institutions accountable, whether it’s a rural county in Kentucky or the state government in Illinois.

Freedom of the Press Quotes

“Republics and limited monarchies derive their strength and vigor from a popular examination into the action of the magistrates,” Benjamin Franklin declared. By sharing knowledge and sparking debate, a free press invigorates and educates the nation’s citizens. Freedom will be “a short-lived possession” unless the people are informed, Thomas Jefferson once said. To quote John Adams: “The liberty of the press is essential to the security of the state.”

The Bill of Rights was modeled after the Virginia Declaration of Rights, written by George Mason in 1776. During the Constitutional Convention, Mason and other Anti-Federalists, including James Monroe and Patrick Henry, believed that the U.S. Constitution failed to place specific limits on the government’s power. That led to the eventual creation of the Bill of Rights and its ten amendments, written by James Madison.

What does the First Amendment say about freedom of the press?

The First Amendment is one of the great statements in the history of human rights. It declares: “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.” That means the government cannot punish you for your views, thoughts, or words, even if they’re unpopular save for very narrow limits. But we the people can say what we think—and the press can perform its essential role: To agitate, investigate, and scrutinize our leaders and institutions. That freedom is the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship.

The press is under attack.

Threats against journalists aren’t new. The Sedition Act of 1798 prohibited the publishing of “false, scandalous, and malicious writing” against the government, and was “perhaps the most grievous assault on free speech in the history of the United States,” writes Geoffrey Stone, author of Perilous Times—Free Speech in Wartime. Antiwar journalists were arrested in World War I and during the Red Scare. In 1971, the U.S. government attempted to cease publication of the Pentagon Papers. Journalists such as former New York Times reporter Judith Miller have chosen jail sentences rather than reveal confidential sources, and in 2007, Joe Arpaio, then sheriff of Maricopa County in Arizona—agitated by investigations into his commercial real estate transactions by the Phoenix New Times—arrested journalists at their homes on false charges.

Today, reporters face an increasingly hostile environment. Journalists and freelance writers have been forced to hand over cell phones and other devices to border agents for inspection when exiting or entering the United States, the nonprofit Committee to Project Journalists reports. Border agents have also interrogated them about everything from private conversations to their social media posts.

At a local level, journalists were arrested at least 34 times in 2017, according to Reporters Without Borders. Nine journalists were arrested for covering protests in St. Louis, the group reports, and a journalist in North Dakota was arrested for covering a Dakota Access pipeline protest. Reporter Dan Heyman was jailed in West Virginia last year after asking then Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price a question about healthcare legislation (the charge was willful disruption of state government processes). On a national level, the President has retweeted violent memes against CNN and railed against reporters and news outlets that criticize his administration, even stating that certain media outlets should lose their broadcasting licenses. He has called the press “enemies of the people,” a phrase also used by 20 th century authoritarians.

The Trump administration’s proposed tariffs could also hurt the newspaper industry. Newsprint is the second largest expense for small papers after human resources costs, according to the National Newspaper Association, and the White House is calling for tariffs of up to 32 percent on uncoated groundwood paper. That would be a major blow for an industry already suffering from layoffs and downsizing: From January 2001 to September 2016, the number of newspaper jobs fell from 412,000 to 174,000, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Thomas Jefferson once quipped that he’d rather have newspapers without a government than a government without newspapers. He changed his mind, however, after the presidential campaign of 1800, when he endured the scrutiny of the press. Politicians from Franklin Roosevelt to Bill Clinton to Donald Trump have complained about the media, which means the press is doing its job. Journalists are watchdogs—not cheerleaders. They ignite dialogue on essential issues. They share the truths that powerful people would rather conceal. They are the force that holds our leaders accountable for their actions.

Why is freedom of the press important in a democracy?

When our leaders threaten journalists, they are threatening the First Amendment, along with our most basic rights. “Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press,” said Jefferson, “and that cannot be limited without being lost.”


Engleska

In an open democratic society, freedom of speech and press is essential. The citizens of that country should be able to criticize their government and be free to express themselves over certain issues, even for issues that are unpopular and sometimes unorthodox. For hundreds of years English law did not believe this to be true because of their laws limiting criticism of the government and state’s religion. After new acts and laws have passed, organizations such as Reporters Without Boarders find England to be one of the freest countries in the world. [1]

Povijesna pozadina

England is part of the United Kingdom which consists of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. The Acts of Union of 1707 brought together the kingdom of Scotland and England. England is an island located northwest of France in the Atlantic Ocean and is connected to Scotland. The population of Britain is 63,047,162 and more than 90 percent of the population are white and speak English.[2] Over 80 percent of the population lives in urban areas like London, which is the capital. The current English government is a Constitutional Monarchy with a Parliament. The English Parliament ultimately runs the country and consists of the appointed House of Lords and the elected House of Commons.[3] There are three main political parties in England: the Conservative, Liberal Democrats and the Labor Party. England has been a frontrunner in economics, military and industry for many years. England ruled over the Thirteen Colonies in America in the 1600s and 1700s, but because of England’s oppressive government on issues like freedom of expression and religion, the United States officially broke free from England in 1783.

Historically, England has some of the strictest laws on freedom of the press. In 1538, King Henry VIII issued a licensing law for all publications.[4] The law proclaimed that anyone who wanted to print something, from books to shipping schedules, had to have a license.[5] This law prevented the publication of opinions with which the King did not agree. This was called prior restraint, which was action taken by the government to prohibit publication of a document before it is distributed to the public.[6] The citizens protested this law for example, the poet John Milton’s speech, “Areopagitica—A Speech for the Liberty of Unlicensed Printing.[7]” Eventually, when Parliament overthrew King Charles they abolished the licensing system, but enacted their own licensing laws which ended in 1694.[8]

Another law that prohibited freedom of the press in England was the law of seditious libel and defamation. The seditious libel law made it a crime to publish anything disrespectful of the state, church or their officers.[9] This law was punishable by death, even if the claim was true. Truth was not a defense for seditious libel, if a person’s reputation was harmed, the offender could be punished. In the 9th century King Alfred the Great believed that people guilty of slander should get their tongues cut out.[10] The laws in England no longer end in the loss of one’s tongue, but there are financial penalties. One prominent libel case in England was the “McLibel” case. This case was between McDonald’s and two members of the London Greenpeace, a local activist group, David Morris and Helen Steel. The organization published a pamphlet, “What’s Wrong with McDonald’s?” and handed them out in front of McDonald’s restaurants. McDonald’s sued, but Morris and Steel fought the longest libel case in England’s history, it lasted for 2 and a half years. McDonald’s was rewarded £96,000 in damages, but their reputation was harmed by the claims in the pamphlet.[11]

Sloboda govora

Over the past few years, England has increased the freedom of the press. In 2009, after a long struggle by free speech campaigns, the United Kingdom’s government abolished the laws on seditious libel and criminal defamation.[12] For hundreds of years these laws have not allowed for criticism of the government and now journalists and the media are free to criticize the government. In April of 2012 the United Kingdom has said that open justice is an essential principle of the constitution, and the public has the right to obtain copies of documents submitted in court cases.[13] The decision came from a case where Čuvar newspaper wanted to obtain copies of the briefs and evidence in an extradition case used by the court. The newspaper requested information for a piece they were working on. At first the court did not believe the public should be allowed these documents for a number of reasons. Eventually, the court reaffirmed the idea of open justice and now allows public to see documents submitted in court cases which allows for greater freedom of the press.

In England, before the time of a democratic Parliament, laws under the Monarch were very strict. Freedom of speech, similar to the freedom of press in England, had been stifled by government. Government created laws to ban the public’s criticism of government. In the 1600s John Locke, the English philosopher, believed that government censorship was an improper exercise of power and freedom of expression is a natural right.[14] Many years after John Locke, England agreed with the philosopher when the United Kingdom joined the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Convention on Human Rights is a group that is aimed at furthering the realization of human rights and personal freedoms in Europe. Now, citizens in England have the freedom of expression in accordance with the law under Article 10 of this document. The right to freedom of expression is not an absolute right, it must fall under the conditions and restrictions of law, but it does give more freedom to speech in England.[15] One of the laws that restrict freedom of expression is the Incitement to Racial and Religious Hatred in England. The Race Relations Act of 1976 says that a person commits an offense if: he publishes or distributes written matter which is threatening, abusive or insulting or if he uses in any public place or meeting words which are threatening, abusive or insulting.[16] In 2006, a man was convicted of inciting racial hatred during a protest against cartoons which were offensive to Islam. Mizanuar Rahman said that soldiers should be brought back from Iraq in body bags and a jury found him guilty for using words with the intent to incite racial hatred.[17]

Currently in England, a teenager is accused for making offensive comments about the deaths of British soldiers in Afghanistan. Azhar Ahmed was charged under the Communications Act of 2003 and faces a racially aggravated charge.[18] Azhar ranted about the deaths of these soldiers getting more attention than innocent families in Afghanistan that have been killed. Azhar tells the soldiers to “DIE & go to HELL! The LOWLIFE FOOKIN SCUM!”.[19] While these may be offensive words to a soldier and their families, one could argue that this is not racially offensive and the young man should not be charged for racially aggravated words.

Comparison Between England and the United States

England in comparison to the United States on freedom of press has similarities and differences. The freedom of press in England has evolved and improved since the times of the Licensing Acts, similar to the United States and the Alien and Sedition Acts. The big difference between the two countries concerning freedom of press is the issue of libel. Historically, the United States left the cases on libel up to the states to decide until New York Times v. Sullivan in 1964. In this case the court sets a new precedent not allowing public officials to silence their critics. The court believes that the press has the right to criticize a public figure. After this case, it has been very difficult for the plaintiff to prove actual malice and be awarded damages. In England, libel cases are much easier to win. A 2009 newspaper article claimed that libel cases were at a record high in Britain because celebrities use the British courts to silence their critics. In 2009 alone, there were 298 defamation cases in England, and most of these were from foreigners.[20] According to the Daily News article, many publishers cannot afford the cost of a libel trial, so they pay the damages to avoid the expensive trial.[21] This suggests that the freedom of the press in the United States is much freer than in England. In the United States, the press can freely criticize a public figure—a celebrity or public official, without worrying about defamation or a libel case.

Similar to freedom of the press, freedom of speech is freer in the United States than in England. Although England promises freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act, it is still very limited. The big issue of inciting racial hatred in England has been an issue in the United States, too. Brandenburg protiv Ohia in 1969 demonstrates freedom of speech in the United States when Clarence Brandenburg, a KKK member said that all African-Americans should be sent back to Africa and spouting other racial hatred speech. Brandenburg was convicted, but the USSC overturned his conviction. Also, in the case R.A.V v. City of Saint Paul, a minor burned a cross in the fenced-in yard of an African-American family and was not convicted because it was freedom of expression. In England, in 2010 a boy pleaded guilty to inciting racial hatred after he put a video on Youtube which showed a Black man getting hanged by the KKK.[22] This suggests that the United States has more freedom when it comes to speech and expression then England does.

Since the Thirteen Colonies officially split with England in 1783, the United States have furthered freedom of speech, press and religion to her citizens. United States citizens pride themselves on the First Amendment and the evolution of those freedoms during the past 236 years. The United States has had ground breaking cases like New York Times v. Sullivan i Texas v. Johnson which expanded both freedom of speech and press. England’s laws over personal freedoms have also evolved since the democratic Parliament has gained more power, but in comparison to the United States, the United States has greater freedom of speech, press and expression.


Gledaj video: SLOBODA TISKA (Kolovoz 2022).