Freedom of the press

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Press freedom)
Jump to: navigation, search
"The freedom of the press" redirects here. For George Orwell's preface, see Animal Farm § "The Freedom of the Press".
For the report by Freedom House, see Freedom of the Press (report).

Freedom of the press or freedom of the media is the freedom of communication and expression through mediums including various electronic media and published materials. While such freedom mostly implies the absence of interference from an overreaching state, its preservation may be sought through constitutional or other legal protections.

With respect to governmental information, any government may distinguish which materials are public or protected from disclosure to the public based on classification of information as sensitive, classified or secret and being otherwise protected from disclosure due to relevance of the information to protecting the national interest. Many governments are also subject to sunshine laws or freedom of information legislation that are used to define the ambit of national interest.

The United Nations' 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers"

This philosophy is usually accompanied by legislation ensuring various degrees of freedom of scientific research (known as scientific freedom), publishing, press and printing the depth to which these laws are entrenched in a country's legal system can go as far down as its constitution. The concept of freedom of speech is often covered by the same laws as freedom of the press, thereby giving equal treatment to spoken and published expression.

Relationship to self-publishing[edit]

Freedom of the press is construed as an absence of interference by outside entities, such as a government or religious organization, rather than as a right for authors to have their works published by other people.[1] This idea was famously summarized by the 20th century American journalist, A. J. Liebling, who wrote, "Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one".[1] Freedom of the press gives the printer or publisher exclusive control over what the publisher chooses to publish, including the right to refuse to print anything for any reason.[1] If the author cannot reach a voluntary agreement with a publisher to produce the author's work, then the author must turn to self-publishing.

Status of press freedom worldwide[edit]

Beyond legal definitions, several non-governmental organizations use other criteria to judge the level of press freedom around the world:

  • Reporters Without Borders considers the number of journalists murdered, expelled or harassed, and the existence of a state monopoly on TV and radio, as well as the existence of censorship and self-censorship in the media, and the overall independence of media as well as the difficulties that foreign reporters may face.
  • The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) uses the tools of journalism to help journalists by tracking press freedom issues through independent research, fact-finding missions, and firsthand contacts in the field, including local working journalists in countries around the world. CPJ shares information on breaking cases with other press freedom organizations worldwide through the International Freedom of Expression Exchange, a global e-mail network. CPJ also tracks journalist deaths and detentions. CPJ staff applies strict criteria for each case; researchers independently investigate and verify the circumstances behind each death or imprisonment.
  • Freedom House likewise studies the more general political and economic environments of each nation in order to determine whether relationships of dependence exist that limit in practice the level of press freedom that might exist in theory. So the concept of independence of the press is one closely linked with the concept of press freedom.

Worldwide press freedom index[edit]

2014 Press Freedom Index[2]
  Very serious situation
  Difficult situation
  Noticeable problems
  Satisfactory situation
  Good situation
  Not classified / No data

Every year, Reporters Without Borders establishes a ranking of countries in terms of their freedom of the press. The worldwide Press Freedom Index list is based on responses to surveys sent to journalists that are members of partner organisations of the RWB, as well as related specialists such as researchers, jurists and human rights activists. The survey asks questions about direct attacks on journalists and the media as well as other indirect sources of pressure against the free press, such as non-governmental groups. RWB is careful to note that the index only deals with press freedom, and does not measure the quality of journalism.

In 2011–2012, the countries where press was the most free were Finland, Norway and Germany, followed by Estonia, Netherlands, Austria, Iceland, and Luxembourg. The country with the least degree of press freedom was Eritrea, followed by North Korea, Turkmenistan, Syria, Iran, and China.[3]

Freedom of the Press[edit]

Freedom of the Press is a yearly report by US-based non-governmental organization Freedom House, measuring the level of freedom and editorial independence enjoyed by the press in every nation and significant disputed territories around the world. Levels of freedom are scored on a scale from 1 (most free) to 100 (least free). Depending on the basics, the nations are then classified as "Free", "Partly Free", or "Not Free".

In 2009 Iceland, Norway, Finland, Denmark, and Sweden topped the list with North Korea, Turkmenistan, Myanmar (Burma), Libya, Eritrea at the bottom.

Non-democratic states[edit]

Georgiy Gongadze, Ukrainian journalist, founder of a popular Internet newspaper Ukrayinska Pravda, who was kidnapped and murdered in 2000.

According to Reporters Without Borders, more than a third of the world's people live in countries where there is no press freedom.[4] Overwhelmingly, these people live in countries where there is no system of democracy or where there are serious deficiencies in the democratic process.[5] Freedom of the press is an extremely problematic problem/concept for most non-democratic systems of government since, in the modern age, strict control of access to information is critical to the existence of most non-democratic governments and their associated control systems and security apparatus. To this end, most non-democratic societies employ state-run news organizations to promote the propaganda critical to maintaining an existing political power base and suppress (often very brutally, through the use of police, military, or intelligence agencies) any significant attempts by the media or individual journalists to challenge the approved "government line" on contentious issues. In such countries, journalists operating on the fringes of what is deemed to be acceptable will very often find themselves the subject of considerable intimidation by agents of the state. This can range from simple threats to their professional careers (firing, professional blacklisting) to death threats, kidnapping, torture, and assassination.

Reporters Without Borders reports that, in 2003, 42 journalists lost their lives pursuing their profession and that, in the same year, at least 130 journalists were in prison as a result of their occupational activities. In 2005, 63 journalists and 5 media assistants were killed worldwide. Examples include:

Regions closed to foreign reporters[edit]

History[edit]

Europe and the United States[edit]

Europe has a long tradition of freedom of speech, including freedom of the press. Now, the United States has that, along with the freedom of religion and the freedom to assemble and to petition the government. All of this is stated in the United States's First Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

After World War II, Hugh Baillie, the president of United Press wire service based in the U.S., promoted freedom of news dissemination. In 1966 he called for an open system of news sources and transmission, and minimum of government regulation of the news. His proposals were aired at the Geneva Conference on Freedom of Information in 1948, but were blocked by the Soviets and by France.[11]

Denmark–Norway[edit]

Between September 4, 1770 and October 7, 1771 the kingdom of Denmark–Norway had the most unrestricted freedom of press of any country in Europe. This occurred during the regime of Johann Friedrich Struensee, whose second act was to abolish the old censorship laws. However, due to the great amount of mostly anonymous pamphlets published that was critical and often slanderous towards Struensee's own regime, he reinstated some restrictions regarding the freedom of press a year later, October 7, 1771.[12]

United Kingdom[edit]

According to the New York Times, "Britain has a long tradition of a free, inquisitive press", but "[u]nlike the United States, Britain has no constitutional guarantee of press freedom."[13]

The Glorious Revolution of 1688 in England established parliamentary sovereignty over the Crown and, above all, the right of revolution. A major contributor to Western liberal theory was John Locke. Locke argued in Two Treatises of Government that the individual placed some of his rights present in the state of nature in trusteeship with the sovereign (government) in return for protection of certain natural individual rights. A social contract was entered into by the people.

First page of John Milton's 1644 edition of Areopagitica

Until 1694, England had an elaborate system of licensing; the most recent was seen in the Licensing of the Press Act 1662. No publication was allowed without the accompaniment of a government-granted license. Fifty years earlier, at a time of civil war, John Milton wrote his pamphlet Areopagitica. In this work Milton argued forcefully against this form of government censorship and parodied the idea, writing "when as debtors and delinquents may walk abroad without a keeper, but unoffensive books must not stir forth without a visible jailer in their title." Although at the time it did little to halt the practice of licensing, it would be viewed later a significant milestone as one of the most eloquent defences of press freedom.

Milton's central argument was that the individual is capable of using reason and distinguishing right from wrong, good from bad. In order to be able to exercise this ration right, the individual must have unlimited access to the ideas of his fellow men in “a free and open encounter." From Milton's writings developed the concept of the open marketplace of ideas, the idea that when people argue against each other, the good arguments will prevail. One form of speech that was widely restricted in England was seditious libel, and laws were in place that made criticizing the government a crime. The King was above public criticism and statements critical of the government were forbidden, according to the English Court of the Star Chamber. Truth was not a defense to seditious libel because the goal was to prevent and punish all condemnation of the government.

Locke contributed to the lapse of the Licensing Act in 1695, whereupon the press needed no license. Still, many libels were tried throughout the 18th century, until "the Society of the Bill of Rights" led by John Horne Tooke and John Wilkes organised a campaign to publish Parliamentary Debates. This culminated in three defeats of the Crown in the 1770 cases of Almon, of Miller and of Woodfall, who all had published one of the Letters of Junius, and the unsuccessful arrest of John Wheble in 1771. Thereafter the Crown was much more careful in the application of libel; for example, in the aftermath of the Peterloo Massacre, Burdett was convicted, whereas by contrast the Junius affair was over a satire and sarcasm about the non-lethal conduct and policies of government.

John Stuart Mill approached the problem of authority versus liberty from the viewpoint of a 19th-century utilitarian: The individual has the right of expressing himself so long as he does not harm other individuals. The good society is one in which the greatest number of persons enjoy the greatest possible amount of happiness. Applying these general principles of liberty to freedom of expression, Mill states that if we silence an opinion, we may silence the truth. The individual freedom of expression is therefore essential to the well-being of society.

Mill’s application of the general principles of liberty is expressed in his book On Liberty: "If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and one, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind".

Italy[edit]

After the Italian unification in 1861, the Albertine Statute of 1848 was adopted as the constitution of the Kingdom of Italy. The Statute granted the freedom of the press with some restrictions in case of abuses and in religious matters, as stated in Article 28:[14]

"The press shall be free, but the law may suppress abuses of this freedom. However, Bibles, catechisms, liturgical and prayer books shall not be printed without the prior permission of the Bishop."

After the abolition of the monarchy in 1946 and the abrogation of the Statute in 1948, the Constitution of the Republic of Italy guarantees the freedom of the press, as stated in Article 21, Paragraphs 2 and 3:[15]

"The press may not be subjected to any authorisation or censorship. Seizure may be permitted only by judicial order stating the reason and only for offences expressly determined by the law on the press or in case of violation of the obligation to identify the persons responsible for such offences."

The Constitution allows the warrantless confiscation of periodicals in cases of absolute urgency, when the Judiciary cannot timely intervene, on the condition that a judicial validation must be obtained within 24 hours. Article 21 also gives restrictions against those publications considered offensive by public morality, as stated in Paragraph 6:

"Publications, performances, and other exhibits offensive to public morality shall be prohibited. Measures of preventive and repressive measure against such violations shall be established by law."

Nazi Germany (1933–1945)[edit]

In 1933 Freedom of the Press was suppressed in Hitler's Germany by the Reichstag Fire Decree of President Paul Von Hindenburg, just as Adolf Hitler was coming to power. Hitler largely suppressed freedom of the press through Joseph Goebbels' Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda. As the Ministry's name implies, propaganda did not carry the negative connotations that it does today (or that it did in the Allied countries); how-to manuals were openly distributed by that same ministry explaining the craft of effective propaganda. The Ministry also acted as a central control-point for all media, issuing orders as to what stories could be run and what stories would be suppressed. Anyone involved in the film industry—from directors to the lowliest assistant—had to sign an oath of loyalty to the Nazi Party, due to opinion-changing power Goebbels perceived movies to have. (Goebbels himself maintained some personal control over every single film made in Nazi Europe.) Journalists who crossed the Propaganda Ministry were routinely imprisoned or shot as traitors. The Sicherheitsdienst and other Nazi police organizations also created a network of internal, domestic spying, so that for example, the White Rose Society was in constant fear of discovery and execution.

Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth[edit]

Freedom of press laws were first passed in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1539.[16]

Sweden[edit]

One of the world's first freedom of the press acts was introduced in Sweden in 1766, mainly due to classical liberal member of parliament Anders Chydenius.[17][18][19][20][21] Excepted and liable to prosecution was only vocal opposition to the King and the Church of Sweden. The Act was largely rolled back after King Gustav's coup d'état in 1772, restored after the overthrowing of his son, Gustav IV of Sweden in 1809, and fully recognized with the abolishment of the king's prerogative to cancel licenses in the 1840s.

Asia[edit]

India[edit]

The Indian Constitution, while not mentioning the word "press", provides for "the right to freedom of speech and expression" (Article 19(1) a). However this right is subject to restrictions under sub clause (2), whereby this freedom can be restricted for reasons of "sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, preserving decency, preserving morality, in relation to contempt, court, defamation, or incitement to an offense". Laws such as the Official Secrets Act and Prevention of Terrorist Activities Act[22] (PoTA) have been used to limit press freedom. Under PoTA, person could be detained for up to six months for being in contact with a terrorist or terrorist group. PoTA was repealed in 2006, but the Official Secrets Act 1923 continues.

For the first half-century of independence, media control by the state was the major constraint on press freedom. Indira Gandhi famously stated in 1975 that All India Radio is "a Government organ, it is going to remain a Government organ..."[23] With the liberalization starting in the 1990s, private control of media has burgeoned, leading to increasing independence and greater scrutiny of government.

It ranks poorly at 140th rank out of 179 listed countries in the Press Freedom Index 2013 released by Reporters Without Borders (RWB).[24] Analytically India's press freedom, as could be deduced by the Press Freedom Index, has constantly reduced since 2002, when it culminated in terms of apparent freedom, achieving a rank of 80 among the reported countries.

Implications of new technologies[edit]

Many of the traditional means of delivering information are being slowly superseded by the increasing pace of modern technological advance. Almost every conventional mode of media and information dissemination has a modern counterpart that offers significant potential advantages to journalists seeking to maintain and enhance their freedom of speech. A few simple examples of such phenomena include:

  • Satellite television versus terrestrial television: Whilst terrestrial television is relatively easy to manage and manipulate, satellite television is much more difficult to control as journalistic content can easily be broadcast from other jurisdictions beyond the control of individual governments. An example of this in the Middle East is the satellite broadcaster Al Jazeera. This Arabic-language media channel operates out of Qatar, whose government is relatively liberal with respect to many of its neighboring states. As such, its views and content are often problematic to a number of governments in the region and beyond. However, because of the increased affordability and miniaturisation of satellite technology (e.g. dishes and receivers) it is simply not practicable for most states to control popular access to the channel.
  • Web-based publishing (e.g., blogging) vs. traditional publishing: Traditional magazines and newspapers rely on physical resources (e.g., offices, printing presses) that can easily be targeted and forced to close down. Web-based publishing systems can be run using ubiquitous and inexpensive equipment and can operate from any global jurisdiction. To get control over web publications, nations and organisations are using geolocation and geolocation software.[citation needed]
  • Voice over Internet protocol (VOIP) vs. conventional telephony: Although conventional telephony systems are easily tapped and recorded, modern VOIP technology can employ low-cost strong cryptography to evade surveillance. As VOIP and similar technologies become more widespread they are likely to make the effective monitoring of journalists (and their contacts and activities) a very difficult task for governments.

Naturally, governments are responding to the challenges posed by new media technologies by deploying increasingly sophisticated technology of their own (a notable example being China's attempts to impose control through a state-run internet service provider that controls access to the Internet) but it seems that this will become an increasingly difficult task as journalists continue to find new ways to exploit technology and stay one step ahead of the generally slower-moving government institutions that attempt to censor them.

In May 2010, U.S. President Barack Obama signed legislation intended to promote a free press around the world, a bipartisan measure inspired by the murder in Pakistan of Daniel Pearl, the Wall Street Journal reporter, shortly after the September 11 attacks in 2001. The legislation, called the Daniel Pearl Freedom of the Press Act, requires the United States Department of State to expand its scrutiny of news media restrictions and intimidation as part of its annual review of human rights in each country.[25] In 2012 the Obama Administration collected communication records from 20 separate home and office lines for Associated Press reporters over a two-month period, possibly in an effort to curtail government leaks to the press. The surveillance caused widespread condemnation by First Amendment experts and free press advocates, and led 50 major media organizations to sign and send a letter of protest to American attorney general Eric Holder.[26][27]

Past sources[edit]

The Napoleonic Code lists freedom of speech, that is the freedom to protect oneself from being quieted by those seeking to prevent exposure, especially in court, as one of the rights of man. Freedom of motion is another.[citation needed] The Universal Declaration of Human Rights which was adopted by the United Nations in 1948, repeats this. The Ancient Greeks and Romans had no law against "press", and their Rules of Equity (rules of the court) established what legal speech should be allowed to be argued in court by either litigant, (i.e., a guarantee any legal argument could not be blocked). US law still prohibits any valid (legal) motion from being quieted,[citation needed] though some complain of being quieted in US courtrooms still. For example, Daniel Ellsberg insisted that people charged with leaking classified information are not allowed to question the classification, even when available evidence strongly suggests that the claim of national security is being used illegally to conceal lies, blunders and even criminal behavior of public officials: "[T]he current state of whistleblowing prosecutions under the Espionage Act makes a truly fair trial wholly unavailable to an American who has exposed classified wrongdoing.[28]

Organizations for press freedom[edit]

See also[edit]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ a b c Powe, L. A. Scot (1992-09-02). The Fourth Estate and the Constitution: Freedom of the Press in America. University of California Press. ISBN 9780520913165. Retrieved 2014-10-14. 
  2. ^ "Press Freedom Index 2014", Reporters Without Borders, 11 May 2014
  3. ^ Press Freedom Index 2011-2012", Reporters Without Borders
  4. ^ a b "Description: Reporters Without Borders". The Media Research Hub. Social Science Research Council. 2003. Retrieved 23 September 2012. 
  5. ^ Freedom House (2005). "Press Freedom Table (Press Freedom vs. Democracy ranks)". Freedom of the Press 2005. UK: World Audit. Retrieved 23 September 2012. 
  6. ^ "Editor's daughter killed in mysterious circumstances", International Freedom of Expression Exchange (IFEX), 2 July 2002
  7. ^ "Ukraine remembers slain reporter", BBC News, 16 September 2004
  8. ^ "Do journalists have the right to work in Chechnya without accreditation?". Moscow Media Law and Policy Center. March 2000. Retrieved 2008-09-06. 
  9. ^ "India praises McCain-Dalai Lama meeting". Washington, D.C.: WTOPews.com. July 27, 2008. Retrieved 2008-09-06. 
  10. ^ Landay, Jonathan S. (March 20, 2008). "Radical Islamists no longer welcome in Pakistani tribal areas". McClatchy Washington Bureau. Retrieved 2008-09-06. 
  11. ^ Eleonora W. Schoenebaum, ed. Political Profiles: The Truman Years (1978) pp 16–17
  12. ^ Laursen, John Christian (January 1998). "David Hume and the Danish Debate about Freedom of the Press in the 1770s". Journal of the History of Ideas (University of Pennsylvania Press) 59 (1): 167–172. doi:10.1353/jhi.1998.0004. JSTOR 3654060. 
  13. ^ "British Press Freedom Under Threat", Editorial, New York Times, 14 November 2013. Retrieved 19 November 2013.
  14. ^ "Lo Statuto Albertino". The official website of the Presidency of the Italian Republic. 
  15. ^ "The Italian Constitution". The official website of the Presidency of the Italian Republic. 
  16. ^ Zamoyski, Adam. "The Polish Way". New York: Hippocrene Books, 1987
  17. ^ "The Freedom of the Press Act", Sveriges Riksdag
  18. ^ "The Swedish tradition of freedom of press"
  19. ^ "The World's First Freedom of Information Act (Sweden/Finland 1766)"
  20. ^ freedominfo.org, "Sweden"
  21. ^ Wikipedia, "Freedom of information legislation" Freedom of Information Act
  22. ^ "The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2002". 
  23. ^ "Freedom of the Press". PUCL Bulletin, (People's Union for Civil Liberties). July 1982. 
  24. ^ "Press Freedom Index 2013". Reporters Without Borders. 
  25. ^ "U.S. to Promote Press Freedom". New York Times. 17 May 2010. 
  26. ^ Hicken, Jackie (15 May 2013). "Journalists push back against Obama administration for seizure of Associated Press records". Deseret News. Retrieved 16 May 2013. 
  27. ^ Savage, Charlie; Leslie Kaufman (13 May 2013). "Phone Records of Journalists Seized by U.S.". The New York Times. Retrieved 16 May 2013. 
  28. ^ Ellsberg, Daniel (2014-05-30), Daniel Ellsberg: Snowden would not get a fair trial – and Kerry is wrong, The Guardian, retrieved 2019-09-21  Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

References[edit]

External links[edit]