freedom of press essay

Essay on Freedom of the Press for Students and Children

500 words essay on freedom of the press.

Freedom of the press is the most important wheel of democracy. Without a free press, a democracy cannot exist. In fact, the press is a great medium that conveys the truth to people. However, it cannot function fully if the press is not free.

People must have heard the saying about the cost of freedom is eternal vigilance. Thus, it is the media’s responsibility to remain vigil for people’s safety. Moreover, the freedom of people is monitored by the media. The press watches those in power to ensure they do not misuse it. In order to do this, freedom of the press is required.

Importance of Freedom of the Press

The press has been given the responsibility of checking and balancing the administration and the government. Whenever there is a social evil lurking or corruption and oppression happens, the press is the first one to raise a voice.

Moreover, we trust the press to collect verify and disseminate the facts and figures which influence people’s decisions. If the press won’t have the liberty to do all this, the people will be in the dark.

Therefore, we see how if even any one of these liberties is take away from the press, the voiceless will lose their voice. Worse yet, if the press will be denied to do their job, the ones in power will run the country as per their will. This will result in uninformed citizens who will thus become powerless.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Moreover, we see how censorship of the press is nothing less than a dictatorship. When the government imposes censorship on the press, it obviously means they are trying to hide something. A person only hides lies and not the truth. Thus, this way the citizens will be manipulated into thinking there is nothing wrong with the government. Subsequently, when there remains no agency to report the truth, the government will gain absolute power.

In short, freedom of the press is important for the smooth functioning of democracy. It is important for people to be socially aware of happenings in the world. One must have the power to criticize the government; it will keep the administration on their toes to do better for the country.

Responsibility a Free Press

As we can conclude from the earlier statements, the press has a huge responsibility on their shoulders. They need to be vigilant and honest. Media has a powerful role to play in any form of government, whether democratic or totalitarian. The information they distribute helps in shaping the views of the public.

When you have such a power to influence the views of a whole public, then you must be even more responsible. In fact, the media is sometimes more powerful than the government. They have people’s trust and support. However, such a power given to any individual or agency is quite dangerous.

In other words, any media without restraints can be hazardous. As they have the power to showcase anything, they may report anything and twist the facts as per their agendas. They have the power to cause outrage amongst the people. A free press can easily manipulate the public’s opinion. This is why we need responsible journalism to refrain the media from reporting false facts which may harm the harmony and peace of a country.

FAQs on Freedom of the Press

Q.1 Why is freedom of the press important?

A.1 Freedom of the press is important for keeping people informed. A free press monitors the administration and forces them to work for the betterment of the country.

Q.2 What is the responsibility of a free press?

A.2 A free press has a huge responsibility of reporting the truth and shaping people’s opinions. Responsible journalism must be practiced to stop people from spreading hate and maintaining the harmony of a country.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

Freedom of the Press

By: History.com Editors

Updated: August 21, 2018 | Original: December 7, 2017

Freedom of the press—the right to report news or circulate opinion without censorship from the government—was considered “one of the great bulwarks of liberty,” by the Founding Fathers of the United States. Americans enjoy freedom of the press as one of the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. New technologies, however, have created new challenges to media freedom.

The First Amendment , which protects freedom of the press, was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the Bill of Rights .

The Bill of Rights provides constitutional protection for certain individual liberties, including freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and the right to assemble and petition the government.

Origins Of Free Press

Before the thirteen colonies declared independence from Great Britain, the British government attempted to censor the American media by prohibiting newspapers from publishing unfavorable information and opinions.

One of the first court cases involving freedom of the press in America took place in 1734. British governor William Cosby brought a libel case against the publisher of The New York Weekly Journal , John Peter Zenger, for publishing commentary critical of Cosby’s government. Zenger was acquitted.

Cato’s Letters

American free press ideals can be traced back to Cato’s Letters, a collection of essays criticizing the British political system that were published widely across pre-Revolutionary America.

The essays were written by Brits John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon. They were published under the pseudonym of Cato between 1720 and 1723. (Cato was a statesman and outspoken critic of corruption in the late Roman Republic.) The essays called out corruption and tyranny in the British government.

A generation later, Cato’s Letters frequently were quoted in newspapers in the American colonies as a source of revolutionary political ideas.

Virginia was the first state to formally protect the press. The 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights stated, “The freedom of the Press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by despotic Governments.”

More than a decade later, Virginia Representative (and later president of the United States) James Madison would borrow from that declaration when drafting the First Amendment.

Media Freedom And National Security

In 1971, United States military analyst Daniel Ellsberg gave copies of classified documents to The New York Times . The documents, which would become known as the Pentagon Papers , detailed a top-secret Department of Defense study of U.S. political and military involvement in Vietnam from 1945 to 1967.

The Pentagon Papers exposed government knowledge that the war would cost more lives than the public had been told and revealed that the presidential administrations of Harry Truman , Dwight D. Eisenhower , John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson all had misled the public about the degree of U.S. involvement in Vietnam.

The government obtained a court order preventing The New York Times from publishing more excerpts from the papers, arguing that the published materials were a national security threat. A few weeks later, the U.S. government sought to block publication of the papers in the Washington Post as well, but the courts refused this time.

In the New York Times Co. v. United States , the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the newspapers, making it possible for The New York Times and Washington Post to publish the contents of the Pentagon Papers without risk of further government censorship.

Former CIA employee Edward Snowden leaked classified documents from the National Security Administration to newspapers in the U.K., United States and Germany in 2013. His leaks revealed several government surveillance programs and set off a global debate about government spying.

Some denounced Snowden as a traitor while others supported his actions, calling him a whistleblower and champion of media freedom.

Press Freedom Around The World

In 2017, a U.S.-based nonprofit, Freedom House, found that just 13 percent of the world’s population enjoys a free press—a media environment where political news coverage is robust and uncensored, and the safety of journalists is guaranteed.

The world’s 10 worst-rated countries and territories include: Azerbaijan, Crimea, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea , Syria , Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.

The United States ranked 37 of 199 countries and territories for press freedom in 2017. Norway, the Netherlands and Sweden were the top ranking countries.

The Origins of Freedom of Speech and Press; Maryland Law Review . Freedom of the Press 2017; Freedom House .

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

First Amendment – Freedom of the Press

The First Amendment protects the free press, including television, radio and the Internet. The media are free to distribute a wide range of news, facts, opinions and pictures.

1735 Truth Is A Defense Against Libel Charge

New York printer John Peter Zenger is tried on charges of seditious libel for publishing criticism of the royal governor. English law – asserting that the greater the truth, the greater the libel – prohibits any published criticism of the government that would incite public dissatisfaction with it. Zenger’s lawyer, Andrew Hamilton, convinces the jury that Zenger should be acquitted because the articles were, in fact, true, and that New York libel law should not be the same as English law. The Zenger case is a landmark in the development of protection of freedom of speech and the press.

1787 Federalist Papers’ Publication Starts

The first of 85 essays written under the pen name Publius by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay begin to appear in the New York Independent Journal. The essays, called the Federalist Papers, support ratification of the Constitution approved by the Constitutional Convention on Sept. 17, 1787. In Federalist Paper No. 84, Hamilton discusses “liberty of the press.”

1791 First Amendment Is Ratified

The First Amendment is ratified when Virginia becomes the 11th state to approve the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights. The amendment, drafted primarily by James Madison, guarantees basic freedoms for citizens: freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly and petition.

1798 Alien And Sedition Acts Signed Into Law

While the nation’s leaders believe an outspoken press was justified during the war for independence, they take a different view when they are in power. The Federalist-controlled Congress passes the Alien and Sedition Acts. Aimed at quashing criticism of Federalists, the Sedition Act makes it illegal for anyone to express “any false, scandalous and malicious writing” against Congress or the president.

The United States is in an undeclared war with France, and Federalists say the law is necessary to protect the nation from attacks and to protect the government from false and malicious words. Republicans argue for a free flow of information and the right to publicly examine officials’ conduct.

1864 Lincoln Orders Two Newspapers Shut

President Abraham Lincoln orders Union Gen. John Dix to stop publication of the New York Journal of Commerce and the New York World after they publish a forged presidential proclamation calling for another military draft. The editors also are arrested. After the authors of the forgery are arrested, the newspapers are allowed to resume publication.

1907 Court Refuses To Review Publisher’s Conviction

In Patterson v. Colorado , the U.S. Supreme Court says it does not have jurisdiction to review the criminal contempt conviction of U.S. Sen. Thomas Patterson, who published articles and a cartoon critical of the state Supreme Court. The Court says that the rights of free speech and free press protect only against prior restraint and do not prevent “subsequent punishment.”

1918 Sedition Act Of 1918 Punishes Critics Of WWI

An amendment to the Espionage Act of 1917, the Sedition Act is passed by Congress. It goes much further than its predecessor, imposing severe criminal penalties on all forms of expression that are critical of the government, its symbols, or its mobilization of resources for World War I. Ultimately, about 900 people will be convicted under the law. Hundreds of noncitizens will be deported without a trial; 249 of them, including anarchist Emma Goldman, will be sent to the Soviet Union.

1925 Court: First Amendment Applies To States’ Laws

In Gitlow v. New York , the U.S. Supreme Court concludes that the free speech clause of the First Amendment applies not just to laws passed by Congress, but also to those passed by the states.

1931 Prior Restraint Ruled Unconstitutional

Near v. Minnesota is the first U.S. Supreme Court decision to invoke the First Amendment’s press clause. A Minnesota law prohibited the publication of “malicious, scandalous, and defamatory” newspapers. It was aimed at the Saturday Press, which had run a series of articles about corrupt practices by local politicians and business leaders. The justices rule that prior restraints against publication violate the First Amendment, meaning that once the press possesses information that it deems newsworthy, the government can seldom prevent its publication. The Court also says the protection is not absolute, suggesting that information during wartime or obscenity or incitement to acts of violence may be restricted.

1936 Court: Newspaper Circulation Tax Unconstitutional

In Grosjean v. American Press Co. , the U.S. Supreme Court decides that governments may not impose taxes on a newspaper’s circulation. The Court says such a tax is unconstitutional because “it is seen to be a deliberate and calculated device … to limit the circulation of information to which the public is entitled.”

1952 Justices Uphold Group Libel Law

In Beauharnais v. Illinois , the U.S. Supreme Court upholds the conviction of a white supremacist for passing out leaflets that characterized African Americans as dangerous criminals. The “group libel” law under which Joseph Beauharnais was prosecuted makes it a crime to make false statements about people of a particular “race, color, creed or religion” for no other reason than to harm that group. The Court rules that libel against groups, like libel against individuals, has no place in the marketplace of ideas.

1964 Court Establishes ‘Actual Malice’ Standard

In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan , the U.S. Supreme Court establishes the “actual malice” standard when it reverses a civil libel judgment against the New York Times. The newspaper was sued for libel by Montgomery, Ala.’s police commissioner after it published a full-page ad that criticized anti-civil rights activities in Montgomery. The court rules that debate about public issues and officials is central to the First Amendment. Consequently, public officials cannot sue for libel unless they prove that a statement was made with “actual malice,” meaning it was made “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”

1969 Justices Uphold FCC’s Fairness Doctrine

Because of the limits of the broadcast spectrum, the U.S. Supreme Court holds that the government may require radio and TV broadcasters to present balanced discussions of public issues on the airwaves. In Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC , the Court upholds the Federal Communications Commission’s fairness doctrine and “personal attack” rule – the right of a person criticized on a broadcast station to respond to the criticism over the same airwaves – saying they do not violate the right to free speech.

1971 Newspapers Win Pentagon Papers Case

The New York Times and the Washington Post obtain secret Defense Department documents that detail U.S. involvement in Vietnam in the years leading up to the Vietnam War. Citing national security, the U.S. government gets temporary restraining orders to halt publication of the documents, known as the Pentagon Papers. But, acting with unusual haste, the U.S. Supreme Court finds in New York Times v. United States that prior restraint on the documents’ publication violates the First Amendment. National security concerns are too speculative to overcome the “heavy presumption” in favor of the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of the press, the Court says.

1972 Court: No Reporter’s Privilege Before Grand Juries

Branzburg v. Hayes is a landmark decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court rejects First Amendment protection for reporters called before a grand jury to reveal confidential information or sources. Reporters argued that if they were forced to identify their sources, their informants would be reluctant to provide information in the future. The Court decides reporters are obliged to cooperate with grand juries just as average citizens are. The justices do allow a small exception for grand jury investigations that are not conducted or initiated in good faith.

1974 Equal Space Law For Candidates Struck Down

In Miami Herald v. Tornillo , the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down a Florida law requiring newspapers to give equal space to candidates running for office. The justices say a candidate is not entitled to equal space to reply to a newspaper’s attack. Compulsory publication, the court says, intrudes on the right of newspaper editors to decide what they want to publish.

1975 Court Allows Publication Of Sex-Crime Victim’s Name

In Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn , the U.S. Supreme Court rules that a state cannot prevent a newspaper from publishing the name of a rape victim in a criminal case when the name already was included in a court document available to the public.

1976 Justices Say Gag Orders On Press Are Prior Restraint

Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart pits the right of a free press against the right to a fair trial. In a multiple-murder case in Nebraska, a local judge imposed a gag order to prevent news coverage that might make it difficult to seat an impartial jury. However, the U.S. Supreme Court rules that judges cannot impose gag orders on reporters covering a criminal trial because they are a form of prior restraint. However, the justices also note that there may be cases in which a gag order might be justified to protect the defendant’s rights.

1977 Court Allows Publication Of Juvenile’s Identity

In Oklahoma Publishing Company v. District Court , the U.S. Supreme Court finds that when a newspaper obtains the name and photograph of a juvenile involved in a juvenile court proceeding, it is unconstitutional to prevent publication of the information, even though the juvenile has a right to confidentiality in such proceedings. A similar ruling will be made by the court two years later, in Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Company , when the Court finds that a newspaper’s First Amendment right takes precedence over a juvenile’s right to anonymity.

1977 Publication Of Juvenile’s Name, Photograph Is Upheld

In the case Oklahoma Publishing Company v. District Court , the U.S. Supreme Court finds that when a newspaper obtains a name and photograph of a juvenile involved in a juvenile court proceeding, it is an unconstitutional restriction on the press to prevent publication of that information, even though the juvenile has a right to confidentiality in such proceedings. A similar ruling is made two years later, in Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Company , when the Court finds that a newspaper’s First Amendment right must take precedence over a juvenile’s right to anonymity.

1978 Justices Allow Search Warrants For Newsrooms

In Zurcher v. Stanford Daily , the U.S. Supreme Court finds that the First Amendment does not protect the press and its newsrooms from search warrants. Police in Palo Alto, Calif., had obtained a warrant to search the newsroom of the student newspaper at Stanford University. Police believed the newspaper had photos of a violent clash between protesters and police and were trying to identify the assailants.

1979 Court: No Shield On Editorial Process Inquiries

In Herbert v. Lando , the U.S. Supreme Court decides that the press clause in the First Amendment does not include a privilege that would empower a journalist to decline to testify about editorial decision-making in civil discovery. The Court says that protecting the editorial process from inquiry would add to the already substantial burden of proving actual malice.

1979 Court Allows Publication Of Juvenile Offender’s Name

In Smith v. Daily Publishing Co. , the U.S. Supreme Court decides that a newspaper cannot be liable for publishing the name of a juvenile offender in violation of a West Virginia law declaring such information to be private. The Court writes: “If a newspaper lawfully obtains truthful information about a matter of public significance then state officials may not constitutionally punish publication of the information, absent a need to further a state interest of the highest order.”

1979 Right To Public Trial Is To Protect Defendant

In Gannett Co. v. DePasquale , the U.S. Supreme Court denies a claim by members of the press and public who were barred from a pretrial hearing in a criminal case. The Court rules that extensive pretrial publicity threatened the defendant’s ability to get a fair trial. The Court holds that the Sixth Amendment right to a public trial is first and foremost for the benefit of the defendant and does not give the press or public an absolute right to attend criminal trials.

1980 Justices Uphold Right To Attend Criminal Trials

In Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia , the U.S. Supreme Court asserts that the public and the press have a First Amendment right to observe criminal trials. The justices say this right is not absolute, but can be restricted only if the judge decides there are no other means to protect the defendant’s right to a fair trial. The other means include a change of venue, jury sequestration, extensive questioning of potential jurors, trial postponement, emphatic jury instructions, and gag orders on trial participants. The Court says open trials help maintain public confidence in the justice system. In 1984, the Court extends its ruling to jury selection. In Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of California , the justices rule that the right to attend criminal trials includes the right to attend jury selection.

1982 Court: Press Has Right To Cover All Trials

Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court establishes broad rights of the press to cover trials of all types. In 1979, three teenage girls accused a man of rape. Massachusetts law required that sex-crime trials involving victims 18 and younger be closed. The Globe Newspaper Co. challenged the law, and after a long legal battle, the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court. By that time, the trial was over, but the justices review the case since the issue will likely arise again. The court strikes down the law as too broad and says the circumstances when a courtroom can be closed are limited.

1983 Media Access Limited In Grenada, Panama Invasions

Media access is banned for the first two days when the United States invades Grenada, its first military action since the Vietnam War. Journalists are kept 170 miles away on the island of Barbados. In response to complaints afterward, the Department of Defense National Media Pool is created. The Pentagon agrees to take in this group with the first wave of troops in future military actions. But in the 1989 invasion of Panama, the pool of reporters again is not allowed to cover early fighting.

1988 Court Allows Censorship Of School Publications

In Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier , the U.S. Supreme Court rules that public school administrators can censor speech by students in publications (or activities) that are funded by the school – such as a yearbook, newspaper, play, or art exhibit – if they have a valid educational reason for doing so.

1988 Parody Of Public Figures Ruled Constitutional

In Hustler Magazine v. Falwell , the U.S. Supreme Court applies the “actual malice” standard, saying the First Amendment protects the right to parody public figures, even if the parodies are “outrageous” or inflict severe emotional distress. The case arose from a parody of Campari liqueur ads in which celebrities spoke about their “first time” drinking the liqueur. Jerry Falwell – a well-known conservative minister and political commentator – was the subject of such a parody in Hustler, a sexually explicit magazine. The Court rules that public figures may not be awarded damages for the intentional infliction of emotional distress without showing that false factual statements were made with “actual malice.”

1990 Court Decides Opinion Not Always Protected

In Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. , the U.S. Supreme Court decides that the First Amendment does not absolutely protect expressions of opinion from being found libelous. The Court makes a distinction between pure opinion and opinion that implies “an assertion of objective fact” that a plaintiff can prove is false. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist writes that “loose, figurative or hyperbolic language” is protected because it would “negate the impression” that the writer is making serious accusations based on fact.

1991 Court: Newspapers Can Be Sued For Revealing Source

Cohen v. Cowles Media Co. establishes that newspapers are subject to liability for breach of contract claims when the identity of a confidential source is revealed. During a Minnesota election, political activist Dan Cohen gave reporters court documents about a candidate after they promised him anonymity. In subsequent articles, Cohen was identified as the source of the documents and fired. He sued the two newspapers, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of contract. The Court rejects the newspapers’ claim to the right to publish Cohen’s name, saying that in this context, the First Amendment offers no special protection.

1991 Media Coverage Limited In Gulf War

The Pentagon imposes rules for media coverage of the war in the Persian Gulf, citing the possibility that some news – including information on downed aircrafts, specific troop numbers, and names of operations – may endanger lives or jeopardize U.S. military strategy. Nine news organizations file a lawsuit questioning the constitutionality of limiting media access to the battleground. But a court rules the question moot when the war ends before the case is decided.

2001 Disclosure Of Illegally Intercepted Communications Protected

In the joined cases of United States v. Vopper and Bartnicki v. Vopper , the U.S. Supreme Court rules that the media cannot be held liable for publishing or broadcasting the illegally intercepted contents of telephone calls or other electronic communications as long as the information is of “public concern” and the media did not participate in the illegal interception.

Related Resources

• Video: Freedom of the Press: New York Times v. United States
• Book: Chapter 7: The Right to Freedom of the Press
• Book: Chapter 15: Freedom of the Press in a Free Society

Handout A: Why Does a Free Press Matter? (Background Essay)

First Amendment freedoms like press, petition, and assembly are rights essential to self-government. The Founders saw press freedom as a way to both protect free republican government and to make sure the government promotes justice.

What Is The History of Press Freedom?

Press freedom is a traditional right, although its practical definition has changed over time. William Blackstone, an English judge and politician, wrote in Commentaries on English Law (1765-70) that freedom of the press was important to a free state and that it required that government could not change what someone could say before it was published or stop them from publishing it. Others, like the Enlightenment philosophers of the early 1700s, saw the press as a way to fight the abuse of power by telling people about government offenses.

Nearly all of the American colonies protected the freedom of the press. At the time, freedom of the press was understood to mean that government could not censor [delete or change] material it did not like in advance of publication—a practice known as “prior restraint.” Governments could, and did, punish people for what they wrote after the fact. The Founders highly valued a free press for its ability to limit government power. The Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776) called the freedom of the press a “great bulwark [protection or support] of liberty.” James Madison agreed and said during the debate over the Bill of Rights that because a free press helps to protect liberty, the freedom of the press must not be violated.

The Founders also valued newspapers because they keep citizens informed. This allows citizens to make good, knowledgeable decisions about government. Because the government’s power comes from the people, the government can’t make good choices unless its citizens are well-informed. Newspapers were a means of informing the public in a society dedicated to self-government. The First Amendment, protecting the freedom of the press, was ratified in 1791.

The meaning of the First Amendment would be debated when Congress, with a Federalist majority, passed the Sedition Act of 1798. The law stated that people could be fined or imprisoned for criticizing the president or members of Congress. President John Adams, also a Federalist, claimed the law was not politically-motivated and was needed to avoid war with France. However, all 25 people arrested for breaking the law were his political opponents. Founders James Madison and Thomas Jefferson each wrote criticisms of Congress for passing the law, arguing that it violated the First Amendment.

Although some states supported the law, public opposition to the Sedition Acts was so great that many Federalists, including President Adams, were turned out of office, and Thomas Jefferson, leader of the Republicans, took office in 1801. The new, Republican-controlled Congress allowed the law to expire. The Supreme Court was never asked to rule on the Sedition Act’s constitutionality. If it had, a main defense of the Sedition Act would likely have been that it was not a prior restraint. Citizens were free to publish their thoughts. They were not, however, protected from criminal punishment after the fact. This traditional understanding of press freedom—no prior restraints—may explain the fact that some of the same officials who approved the First Amendment also approved the Sedition Act.

A Free Press and State Governments

The First Amendment protected the press from federal government censorship. State governments, however, routinely censored newspapers. For example, before and during the Civil War, some southern states with economies relying on slave labor censored anti-slavery newspapers. At the same time, pro-slavery newspapers were censored in some northern states. Regulation of the press by state governments continued until 1931 when the Supreme Court applied the First Amendment’s protection of press freedom to the states.

The case of Near v. Minnesota (1931) involved a state policy that required newspapers to get government approval before publication. Publishers had to show the government that they had a good reason for what they wanted to print. If they could not, the paper would be censored. The Court held that this kind of prior restraint on publication was the type of censorship the First Amendment was designed to prevent. The Court also held that, except in very rare circumstances, neither federal nor state governments could stop the publication of materials in advance.

The tough requirements to justify prior restraints mean that general claims of national security are not enough for government to stop publication in advance. In the case of New York Times v. U.S. (1971), the federal government attempted to prevent The New York Times and The Washington Post from publishing excerpts [small pieces or long quotes] from the Pentagon Papers. The Pentagon Papers were illegally leaked [given to the public] classified [secret] documents that revealed U.S. government misconduct during the Vietnam War. The Nixon Administration claimed that making them public would be dangerous to national security.

The Supreme Court found the prior restraint unconstitutional. They said the word ‘security’ is too general to justify taking away the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press: “In the First Amendment the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. In revealing the workings of government that led to the Vietnam War, the newspapers nobly did precisely that which the Founders hoped and trusted they would do.”

In this case, the Supreme Court emphasized that a key reason for the First Amendment was to make sure citizens could keep government accountable to the people. Since there was no specific threat to national security, the government failed to justify using prior restraint to limit citizens’ First Amendment rights.

What About Libel?

Like all individual rights, freedom of the press has limits defined by the equal rights of others. One example is libel – written or printed speech that is false and harms someone’s reputation. Like the definition of press freedom, the legal definition of libel has changed over time.

In the 1800s and before, truth was not always a defense for libel. In the case of People v. Croswell (1804), Harry Croswell was convicted of libel for printing a story critical of President Thomas Jefferson in his newspaper. Croswell appealed his conviction. Alexander Hamilton, the Founder who represented Croswell on appeal, argued that truth should be a defense for libel. Croswell’s conviction was upheld, but the case led New York to change its law to allow truth as a defense. Though the case was not decided by the Supreme Court, People v. Croswell was a very important case because Hamilton’s arguments led New York to reject the definition of libel from English tradition and in the Sedition Act, leading to greater press freedom for individuals.

In 1960, the Civil Rights Movement [the social and political movement to give equal rights and treatment to people of all races] was gaining strength. Civil rights leaders ran a full-page ad in the New York Times to raise funds to help civil rights leaders, including Martin Luther King, Jr. Sixty well-known Americans signed it. The ad described what it called a “wave of terror” of police violence against peaceful protesters in Montgomery, Alabama. What it described was mostly accurate [correct or true], but some of the charges in the ad were not true. For example, the ad said that police “ringed” [surrounded] a college campus where protestors were, but this charge was exaggerated [made to seem larger or more important than it really is]. The ad also stated, falsely, that state authorities locked the dining hall shut in response to the protest “in an attempt to starve them into submission.”

L.B. Sullivan was one of three people in charge of police in Montgomery. He sued the New York Times for libel. The ad did not mention Sullivan’s name, but Sullivan claimed that the ad suggested that he was responsible for the actions of the police and that the ad damaged his reputation in the community. In the Alabama court, Sullivan won his case and the New York Times was ordered to pay $500,000 in damages.

The Times appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court in Sullivan v. New York Times (1963). The newspaper argued that it did not mean to hurt L.B. Sullivan. The newspaper had no reason to believe that the advertisement included false statements, so it did not check their accuracy. The Times argued that if a newspaper had to check the accuracy of every criticism of every public official a free press would be severely limited.

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the New York Times. In order to prove libel, a “public official” must know that the newspaper acted with “‘actual malice’– that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless [irresponsible] disregard” for the truth. The Court stated that America has a “national commitment” to the idea that debate about public issues should be free and open. Free and open debate about the conduct of public officials, the Court reasoned, was more important than occasional, honest factual errors that might hurt officials’ reputations.

The result of the Sullivan decision is that, generally speaking, it is very difficult for public officials to win in court if they accuse a publisher of libel. The Court ruled in 1987 that public officials cannot sue for emotional distress in libel cases unless the publication contained a false statement made with “actual malice.”

Press Freedom Today

New technology and the growing concern about national security have created new opportunities for press freedom as well as new threats to it. On the one hand, the internet lets citizens publish their ideas and share them with a wide audience in ways that were never possible before. Prior restraint is much harder for government to impose when news can be posted online. Video sites like YouTube enable citizens to report on government action immediately. On the other hand, there have been several cases in which citizens recording police action have had their cameras taken by police and have even faced prosecution. American companies like Google must also decide whether to disable certain search terms or otherwise help oppressive governments censor the information people in their countries can access online.

In a time when anyone with a keyboard, a camera, and an internet connection can be a journalist, it is incredibly important that citizens are aware of the importance of press freedom, and their own role in keeping government within its constitutional limits.

Critical Thinking Questions

• Historically, how has press freedom been understood?
• The Sedition Act of 1798 seems unconstitutional to modern readers. How might someone in 1798 have argued that it was constitutional?
• Summarize the Court’s ruling in New York Times v. U.S. Do you agree with the Court’s reasoning?
• What was the Court’s reasoning for its ruling in New York Times v. Sullivan ? Would you have come to the same conclusion if you had been deciding the case?
• What do you think is the greatest threat to press freedom today? What can citizens do to ensure our press freedom is protected?

If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

To log in and use all the features of Khan Academy, please enable JavaScript in your browser.

US government and civics

Course: us government and civics   >   unit 3, freedom of the press: lesson overview.

• Freedom of the press

Cases to know

Key takeaways, review questions, want to join the conversation.

• Upvote Button navigates to signup page
• Downvote Button navigates to signup page
• Flag Button navigates to signup page

Freedom of the Press

The ACLU works in courts, legislatures, and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and the laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country.

ACLU Cheers House Passage of the PRESS ACT

ACLU, Free Press, and First Amendment Rights Orgs Urge Courts to Unseal Documents Related to FBI Raid on Journalist

ACLU, Civil Rights Organizations, and Broadcasters Demand Transparency into FBI Raid of Journalist’s Home

ACLU Cheers House Judiciary Committee for Supporting Bills Expanding Protections for Journalists and Reining in Warrantless Government Surveillance

Explore more, what we're focused on.

Media Protection Laws

What's at stake.

“The press was to serve the governed, not the governors.”

—U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black in New York Times Co. v. United States (1971)

The freedom of the press, protected by the First Amendment, is critical to a democracy in which the government is accountable to the people. A free media functions as a watchdog that can investigate and report on government wrongdoing. It is also a vibrant marketplace of ideas, a vehicle for ordinary citizens to express themselves and gain exposure to a wide range of information and opinions.

The rise of the national security state and the proliferation of new surveillance technologies have created new challenges to media freedom. The government has launched an unprecedented crackdown on whistleblowers, targeting journalists in order to find their sources. Whistleblowers face prosecution under the World War One-era Espionage Act for leaks to the press in the public interest. And in the face of a growing surveillance apparatus, journalists must go to new lengths to protect sources and, by extension, the public’s right to know.

The ACLU has played a central role in defending the freedom of the press, from our role in the landmark Pentagon Papers case to our defense of whistleblower Edward Snowden and our advocacy for a new media shield law . When press freedom is harmed, it is much harder to hold our government accountable when it missteps or overreaches.

Essay on Freedom of the Press for Students and Others in Simple language

Table of Contents

Freedom of the press or media is the belief system that communications to the public through the medium of print, television and, these days, internet should be free of oversight from the government. Different countries have different provisions to guarantee this right. Below you will find essays on freedom of the press and how it relates to India and its role and importance in a democracy. The essays vary in length and should prove useful for your exams. Feel free to select the essays as per your need.

Fill Out the Form for Expert Academic Guidance!

Please indicate your interest Live Classes Books Test Series Self Learning

Verify OTP Code (required)

I agree to the terms and conditions and privacy policy .

Fill complete details

Target Exam ---

Long and Short Essay on Freedom of the Press in English

We have provided below short and long essays on freedom of press in English. These freedom of press essays have been written in simple yet effective sentences to convey a fact based information.

After reading these freedom of press essays you will know what is freedom of press and what role does it plays in a democracy.

Also you will know how freedom of press is essential for keeping democracy safe and making the voice of people heard.

You can use these essays on Freedom of Press in your school or college competition where you have to write an essay, give a speech or take part in debate competitions.

Essay on Freedom of Press and Judiciary – Essay 1 (350 words)

Introduction

A free press and a free judiciary are two very important cornerstones of a democracy. Together, they are responsible for ensuring transparency and holding those in power accountable for their policies and actions. Although their actual functions are different, both institutions act as checks and balances for the government and, therefore, their roles are complementary.

Roles of Press and Judiciary

It is the responsibility of the media to bring forth news and facts that will shape public opinion and allow the citizens of a country to exercise their rights. The judiciary’s role is to protect those rights. Therefore, it becomes clear that in order to function efficiently, both the media and the judiciary must be independent of any outside influences that may attempt to skew information or legal decisions.

However, the roles of these two institutions do not end here. The judiciary is also responsible for protecting the freedom of the press. At the same time, the press is responsible for reporting facts and events in a manner that helps the judiciary make impartial legal decisions that can affect the course of a nation. While it is the media’s job to raise important issues and update the citizens of a country, it is the judiciary’s job to ensure that it can do so without interference.

The two systems also act as checks and balances for each other. The right to freedom of speech and expression isn’t absolute and it is up to the judiciary to decide when the press is being denied this right and when it cannot exercise this right. On the other hand, it is up to the media to ensure that the judiciary dispenses justice in a transparent and effective manner.

There are four pillars that support a working democracy – the executive, legislature, judiciary and press. Of these, the latter two are vital to the proper functioning of a democracy. Each must protect and reinforce the other in order for the power to remain in the hands of the people in a democracy.

Essay on Freedom of Press in Democracy – Essay 2 (400 WORDS)

A democracy is a system wherein power is supposed to lie in the hands of the people. They may choose to exercise this power directly or to elect representatives from amongst their numbers. These representatives then form a governing body such as a parliament.

In order for a democracy to work, it needs to have four solid aspects – free and fair elections, protection of the people’s human rights, the participation of citizens and the rule of law applied equally to everyone. However, without the freedom of the press, all of this is moot.

Freedom of Press in Democracy

There can be no denying the fact that a democracy will only survive if there is freedom of the press or media. Since a democracy depends upon its citizens, these citizens must be well-informed so that they can make political decisions and elect their representatives appropriately. However, it is impossible or creates difficulty for every citizen to go searching for such information themselves.

This is where the press comes in. It falls upon the news media to collect, verify and disseminate the information that can help people make the decisions that allow a democracy to work. As such, the press becomes a powerful tool for the efficient functioning of a democratic government. By reporting verified facts, the press not only allows people to be knowledgeable about what is going on but also acts as a check on the government.

It becomes obvious, then, that the press must be free to do its job. It should not have to face censorship that hides crucial information from the public. The right to freedom of speech and expression also includes the right of the press to the same freedom. If members of the press are intimidated and harassed or are discredited without reason, the people lose the only tool they have to participate effectively in the running of their country.

Without freedom of the press, no government can be considered ‘of the people, by the people and for the people’. Unfortunately, the past few years have seen increasing curbs, direct or indirect, on the media and its ability to report. These curbs have come in the form of harassment, threats and intimidation and are having increasingly disastrous consequences for the dissemination of unbiased information. Unless this trend is reversed, we may see some of the most powerful democracies in the world collapsing soon.

Essay on Importance of Freedom of Press and Media – Essay 3 (450 words)

It has been said that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. The institution that maintains that vigil is the press or the media. In other words, if the people are to be free, it is the job of the media to ensure that it keeps a watch on those in power in whose hands the freedom lies. In order to do so, press that is free of any outside influences or influencers is absolutely vital.

Importance of Freedom of Press

The press has a responsibility to act as check and balance for the administration and the government. It is the press that raises its voice against social ills, malpractices, corruption and oppression. It is also the press that gathers, verifies and distributes events, facts and information that allow the people of a country to make sound judgments.

However, none of this is possible if the press itself is silenced or if its voice is only allowed when those in power permit. The information that comes from the press at such a time becomes suspect. Worse yet, the press may not be allowed to report news or express opinions that run contrary to what the people in power want. This means a citizenry that is woefully uninformed and, therefore, powerless.

This is not mere speculation. Time and time again, recent history has proven that censorship of the press is one of the most common features of a dictatorship. The censorship may not even be direct or obvious at first. A government may often start by discrediting the news media and what is being reported. It may stridently reinforce the notion that the media cannot be trusted by undermining the news and facts that media presents to the public.

This is when the media begins to exercise self-censorship to avoid outrage manufactured by the government. As time passes, this self-censorship may become more ingrained or such distrust for the news media may develop among the people that they call for the government to intervene. Of course, once the media is muzzled, there is no one to report truths. In the absence of those truths, the citizenry has no power to affect the necessary changes and the government reigns supreme.

No right is absolute. This is true even for the right to freedom of speech or expression. However, the right does exist and as long as it does, the power lies in the hands of the people. Since the freedom of the press also falls under this right, it is clear that the press is the tool that indirectly protects all other rights that a people may enjoy. Curbing the freedom of the press is, thus, curbing the freedom of the people.

Essay on Freedom of Press and Social Responsibility – Essay 4 (500 words)

Social responsibility is the obligation to guide one’s actions on the basis of the effect the actions will have on society, economy, culture and environment. What this means is that everyone has a responsibility to express themselves in a way that doesn’t harm the social, economic, cultural and environmental aspects of the world we live in.

Social Responsibility and Freedom of the Press

The press has a powerful role to play in any setting. It disseminates information and expresses opinions that guide and shape the public’s opinion and stances. Nowhere can this be seen better than in the reporting done in the 20 th and 21 st centuries across the globe. This is the time that reporting of facts became widespread and print media came into its own.

The theory of social responsibility of the press lies between total authoritarianism and libertarianism. As per the theory, a free press should be allowed without any censorship but the content should be self-regulated and open to discussion in public panels. It helps establish guidelines for professionalism in reporting and insists upon high standards of quality in terms of truth, accuracy and information.

The fact is that media without any fetters can be dangerous. It can report anything, twist any facts or even present outright lies in order to maintain its influence. It can be manipulated quite easily and, in turn, can manipulate the very public opinion it is supposed to shape. Responsible journalism doesn’t only mean reporting facts. It also means placing those facts in context and, under certain circumstances, even refraining from reporting facts or expressing opinions that can cause harm.

Specific Example

The perfect example of this situation is the Mumbai attacks on November 26. When the Rapid Action Force, Marine Commandos and National Security Guard surrounded the Taj Hotel and the Oberoi Trident, 67 channels were on hand to broadcast live the proceedings. Thanks to minute-by-minute updates, the terrorists knew exactly what was going on outside and were able to plan their defence accordingly. The job of the commandos became infinitely more difficult as they tried to subdue the terrorists and rescue hostages.

After the event, the Supreme Court ruled that the media had been extremely irresponsible and endangered the lives of not only the rescue teams but also the hostages. In their bid to increase their ratings, various TV channels cast aside all common sense and carelessly and ceaselessly released updates that helped the terrorists while hindering security forces. While freedom of expression is a right, it isn’t without its limitations and during those fateful days, the news media flagrantly violated those limitations for revenue.

There can be no doubt that a strong and free press is crucial to the functioning of any democracy. However, like any other right, the right to freedom of expression must be exercised with caution lest it does more harm than good. Unfortunately, news media depends on ratings to generate revenue and has demonstrated time and again that it will cross many moral lines to get both. In order to be truly effective, the press needs to remember that it has a responsibility to its audience and to society as a whole to be rational and conscientious in its reporting.

Essay on Freedom of the Press/Media in India – Essay 5 (650 words)

The belief that expressions and communiqués through various media such as print, television and the internet are a right to be exercised freely without government intervention is known as freedom of the press and media. This freedom is considered one of the cornerstones of democracy. In order to keep checks and balances on the government and its activities, the public must be adequately informed. This information is supposed to be dispensed by the press.

History of the Press in India

The Indian press is deeply rooted in Indian history and had its beginnings under the aegis of the British Raj. During the Indian struggle for freedom, various acts were enacted by the British government to censor press coverage of parties such as the Congress which were in the forefront of the independence movement. These acts included the Indian Press Act (1910), Indian Press (Emergency) Act (1931-32) and the Defence of India Act during the Second World War (1939-1945).

Freedom of the Press/Media in India

With the advent of independence, Indian leaders laid out the Constitution of India which guaranteed certain rights to all its citizens as part of being a democracy. While there is no specific Act in the constitution regarding the freedom of the press, Article 19 (1) a guarantees the right of freedom of speech and expression to all citizens. The freedom of the press is deemed to be part of this right. Ideally, this means that the communiqués and expressions in various media cannot be censored by the government.

However, there are limitations to this freedom – limitations that apply to both private citizens and member of the press. The limitations are listed in Article 19 (2) and restrict freedom of speech and expression if said freedom interferes with the following:

• Security of the State
• Sovereignty and Integrity of India
• Public Order
• Friendly Relations with Foreign States
• Contempt of Court
• Decency or Morality

The offence of sedition as laid out in Article 124A is also something that can be used to curb the freedom of the media. The article states ‘Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in India, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which a fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.’

However, this isn’t absolute as laid out in Explanation 3 which states ‘Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.’

Current Position

Although India is considered the largest democracy in the world, the freedom of the press is declining in the country. As per the World Press Freedom Index of 2018, India holds a position of 138 out of 180. This has slipped down two points from 136 in 2017. The highest position the country achieved was in 2002 when it was ranked at 80. Since then there has been an alarming decline. Reporter without Borders, the organization that releases the index, cites growing intolerance and the murders of journalists as the reasons behind this decline.

As the world’s largest democracy, India has a duty to ensure that the press has the right to disseminate information and express opinions without excessive censorship. Unfortunately, in recent years, this right has been increasingly curbed. This oppression of the press is an alarming trend as it does not allow for proper checks and balances on the government and its activities. The Indian people need to remember that in order to have a strong democracy they need a strong and free press.

Related Information:

• Essay on India
• Essay on Democracy in India
• Essay on Fundamental Rights
• Essay on Freedom of Speech
• Essay on Nationalism
• Essay on Newspaper
• Slogans on Newspaper
• Speech on Newspaper
• Essay on Social Media

Related content

Talk to our academic expert!

Language --- English Hindi Marathi Tamil Telugu Malayalam

Get access to free Mock Test and Master Class

Register to Get Free Mock Test and Study Material

Offer Ends in 5:00

• Nieman Foundation
• Fellowships

To promote and elevate the standards of journalism

February 7, 2023

Press freedom community: prioritize the defense of journalism that serves the public interest, to produce positive social outcomes, press freedom advocacy must shape the global information space to promote accountability and democratic debate.

Tagged with

Bangladeshi journalists protest in front of press club as they demand press freedom in Dhaka, Bangladesh on December 5, 2022 Syed Mahamudur Rahman/NurPhoto via AP

For 15 years until 2021, I served as the executive director of the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) and in that capacity traveled the world to defend press freedom. I visited countless newsrooms and interviewed hundreds of journalists under threat. I regularly met with government representatives to make the case that respect for press freedom was not only a matter of law and principle but of national interest. I helped produce detailed reports describing the deteriorating climate and making specific recommendations. I prodded democratic governments to speak out and apply pressure when press freedom was violated. I rallied the global media to cover attacks on their colleagues. I worked closely with peer organizations in the press freedom community.

All these efforts made a difference. But they were not enough to reverse the alarming decline in press freedom worldwide.

As the losses mounted and jails filled, questions emerged. Was our strategy correct? Were we making the best argument to engage the public, governments, policymakers, and the media community itself? Were we effectively able to communicate why journalism mattered, at a time when it was being transformed by technology? Was there an inherent weakness in the human rights model for advocacy, developed and refined over decades, and based on a name-and-shame approach?

I first joined CPJ in May 1997 as the Americas program coordinator, having spent a decade as a reporter in Latin America. Precisely because CPJ was committed to defending the fundamental rights of all journalists, staff were instructed at that time not to make judgements or “to engage in media criticism.” Under international law, all journalists were entitled to precisely the same protection. The premise, linked to the broader human rights movement, was that defending the fundamental right of journalists would strengthen accountability, seed democracy, and help shape the emerging rules-based international order. Through its press freedom advocacy, CPJ could help transform societies. However, this endeavor would only have credibility if we stuck to our principles, defending all journalists regardless of their ideology, and eschewing judgments about the quality or ethics of their reporting.

There was certainly a bit of magical thinking in this formulation but at the time it seemed to be working. In my first few years at CPJ, independent journalism blossomed around the world. [1] Of course the collapse of the Soviet Union had a lot to do with this, but so did the political opening in Asia, and the end of proxy wars in Latin America.

In 2006, I became Executive Director of CPJ. While affirming the right-based approach to press freedom defense, I relaxed the strictures against media criticism and allowed the regional experts to apply greater discretion in determining their priorities. While CPJ continued to operate within a human rights framework, the regional experts often made decisions about which cases to take up based on the perceived value of the media outlet under attack, taking into account its independence from authority, and the quality of its journalism. Priorities were also determined by relationships that CPJ staff developed with journalists and editors themselves who were working under threat and would appeal directly for assistance.

This internal tension between a mandate grounded in rights with equal protection for all and a reality of selective advocacy for journalists who reflected shared values was manageable as long as press freedom conditions were improving. But the considerations shifted when press freedom began to deteriorate. The turning point, though we did not fully grasp it at the time, came years earlier following the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and the onset of the War on Terror. In December 2000 CPJ recorded its lowest number ever of journalists imprisoned around the world — 81. In December 2001, three months after the terror attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the number had risen to 118. From that point onward, the numbers of journalists imprisoned climbed steadily and inexorably upward.

Over the course of the next two decades, there were waves of repression linked to major shifts in the global information landscape. The 2011 Arab Spring, coming on the heels of the Color Revolutions in Eastern Europe, was another major turning point. Mass protests fueled by anger at corruption and human rights abuses toppled entrenched regimes, causing governments to recognize the threat posed by independent information and to clamp down on online speech. The most profound shifts were in Russia and China, whose governments sought not only to assert greater authority in the domestic information space but to strengthen their international propaganda networks to weaken their adversaries and shape global perceptions.

Another wave of repression was linked to the rise of elected autocrats. Many of these new leaders explicitly attacked the traditional media as part of their campaign strategies, relying on social media to rally their supporters and deliver their political message. They also urged their supporters to swarm their critics online, unleashing waves of harassment and vilification that significantly raised the cost of critical journalism. In some cases, their messages were amplified by armies of paid supporters and bots, which further corrupted and polarized the domestic information space. [2]

In the United States, where Donald Trump employed a similar strategy to gain office, independent journalists and critical media outlets became a permanent punching bag for his administration. President Trump’s anti-media rhetoric was embraced by autocratic leaders around the world who not only referred to critical journalism as “fake news” but passed new laws criminalizing its publication. [3] The number of journalists jailed around the world on “false news” charges (the category tracked by CPJ) nearly doubled from 20 to 37 over the course of the Trump administration, as the number of journalists imprisoned worldwide set new records annually, reaching 274 at the end of 2020, the last year of the Trump presidency. [4]

During this period, we also saw increased levels of violence, much of it perpetrated by criminal and militant groups who were largely impervious to traditional human-rights advocacy.  The two decade-long War on Terror — from the September 2001 attacks to the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021 — was also characterized by military conflict in which journalists paid an extraordinary price. All told, more than 1,000 journalists were killed during this period, including 189 in Iraq, 139 in Syria, and 53 in Afghanistan. The breakdown gives some sense of the nature of the risk. Two hundred fifty-seven journalists were killed in crossfire incidents, in some cases by the U.S. military, which deployed force recklessly in ways that undermined the safety of civilians. But well over 100 were murdered by both criminals and militant groups, who frequently targeted journalists for reprisal. [5] Kidnapping also became an occupational hazard.

The rights-based approach to press freedom advocacy was never going to be effective against non-state actors because criminals and terrorist groups do not feel bound by human rights agreements. Instead, advocacy groups sought to document and publicize the kidnapping and murders of journalists in the hope that negative media coverage would deter criminals from carrying out future crimes. The strategy was of limited efficacy, because criminal and militant groups, ranging from drug cartels in Mexico to Islamic militants in South Asia and the Middle East, were largely indifferent to the negative attention in the traditional media. In fact, in many instances, they cultivated it, publicizing brutal acts of fear as a way of sowing fear and energizing their followers.

Recognizing this reality, and following the videotaped murders of journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff by Islamic State militants in 2014, I started a new program at CPJ focused on journalists’ security. The logic was that the only way to stop the horrific murders was to make sure that journalists had the tools, resources, and training to stay safe. Our approach was to combine security information and resources with direct assistance for journalists under threat under the rubric of a new Emergencies Department. This new structure literally saved lives – evacuating journalists under threat – and helped create greater awareness about the importance of safety protocols, especially for international journalists working in high-risk environments.

At the same time, the emergency response work began to consume more time and resources. Because of its visibility and impact, it also attracted more funding, shifting the culture of the organization. [6]

The rise in violence and repression against journalists around the world had led to a dramatic decline in levels of press freedom as measured by leading indices prepared by Freedom House, V-Dem and Reporters Without Borders. But there are other factors as well. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated deeply negative trends grounded in what has been dubbed by political scientist Larry Diamond as the “democratic recession.” During the first phase of the pandemic, elected autocrats such as Trump, Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil and Narendra Modi in India used lies and misinformation to undermine the public health consensus. Their strategy of “censorship through noise” or “flooding” was based less on suppressing information and more on sowing confusion and paralysis and monopolizing attention. Around the world, at least 80 countries imposed new restrictions on speech and assembly that they falsely claimed were necessary to protect public health. [7]  

While democratic populists have exploited new technologies to impose their own narratives domestically, authoritarian governments have relied on cruder measures to restrict critical expression while also seeking to shape the global information space in ways that advance their interests. The Chinese government has poured significant sums into media development, particularly in Africa where it has underwritten state broadcasters and journalism training. It has also made investments in its global propaganda network, which functions on both social media and traditional media, primarily through the English language service of the CCTV.

Russia’s efforts to shape global perceptions are more nefarious and more disruptive. Russia views the use of propaganda and disinformation as a tool of war and has used a variety of information strategies to weaken and undermine its adversaries. Putin’s view is that the West has employed information operations to spark unrest and install Western-allied governments, most notably in Ukraine. Similar efforts by Russia are simply a way of leveling the playing field.

A rights-based approach must remain at the heart of press freedom and freedom of expression advocacy, most notably legal advocacy grounded in international law. But if the goal is to produce positive social outcomes press freedom must more actively seek to shape the global information space to promote accountability and democratic debate. This means acknowledging a focus on protecting the rights of the media outlets that report on corruption, advance accountability, and provide the public with timely and accurate information with a variety of perspectives on the widest range of issues. It means infusing press freedom advocacy with a recognition that in the current environment news and information that advance accountability will not necessarily prevail in the “marketplace of ideas.”

In more than two decades of press freedom defense, I have seen governments, terrorists and criminal groups use the global information system to promulgate their own narratives, build support for war, undermine the global health consensus, damage democracy and drive polarization and fear. To counter these insidious forces, the press freedom community should prioritize the defense of journalism that serves the public interest. By doing so, those defending the rights of journalists can best fulfill their original mission: Ensuring that people around the world have access to news and information that allows them to most effectively exercise power.

Joel Simon is the founding director of the Journalism Protection Initiative at the Craig Newmark Graduate School of Journalism. This essay is excerpted from A New Paradigm for Global Journalism: Press Freedom and Public Interest , published by the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University. During 2022, Simon was a fellow at the Tow Center and a visiting senior fellow at the Knight First Amendment Institute, also at Columbia. The author is grateful to the Ford Foundation, which provided funding.

[1] Adrian Karatnycky, Freedom in the World: The Annual Survey of Political Rights and Civil Liberties 1998-9 (New York: Freedom House, 1999);  Adrian Karatnycky, Freedom in the World: The Annual Survey of Political Rights and Civil Liberties 1999-2000 (New York: Freedom House, 2000); Adrian Karatnycky, Freedom in the World: The Annual Survey of Political Rights and Civil Liberties 2000-2001 (New York: Freedom House, 2001); Sarah Repucci, Media Freedom: A Downward Spiral.

[2] See for example: Julie Posetti, Nabeelah Shabbir, Diana Maynard, Kalina Bontcheva, Nermine Aboulez, The Chilling: global trends in online violence against women journalists; research discussion paper (Paris: UNESCO, 2021).  

This report documents the scope of systematic online attacks on free expression and lack of an adequate response from the tech companies.

[3] “Censorious governments are abusing “fake news” laws,” The Economist, February 13, 2021, https://www.economist.com/international/2021/02/13/censorious-governments-are-abusing-fake-news-laws .

[4] CPJ, Email with author, December 20, 2022; Arlene Getz, “Number of jailed journalists spikes to new global record,” CPJ, December 14, 2022, https://cpj.org/reports/2022/12/number-of-jailed-journalists-spikes-to-new-global-record/ . 

The upward trajectory continued after Trump left office, reaching 293 by the end of 2021 and a staggering 363 at the end of 2022. The 2022 surge in imprisonment was due in part to the crackdown in Iran.

[5] Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), Email with author, December 20, 2022.  

[6] Sherry Ricchiardi, “At-risk journalists can turn to ‘Emergencies Response Team’ for help,” International Journalists’ Network, October 30, 2018, https://ijnet.org/en/committee-to-protect-journalists-launches-emergency-team .  

[7] Joel Simon and Robert Mahoney, The Infodemic, 68-72; 147-148.

Most popular articles from Nieman Foundation

Summer 2004: journalist’s trade introduction, publisher, editor and reporter, the press and the presidency.

Why Is Freedom Of The Press Important in a Democracy?

Freedom of the press states that expression and communication through published media – like in print and video – is a right. Freedom of the press is codified in multiple documents that set international standards . A government should not interfere with this freedom or censor media that’s critical of state power. For years, freedom of the press has been an essential part of democracy. In a democracy, people have the right to choose their government either directly or by electing representatives. Why is freedom of the press so important for democracy to thrive? What are the threats to this freedom?

Truth, accountability, and informed voting: reasons why freedom of the press matters

A healthy democracy has guiding principles like citizen rule, fair and free elections, the protection of individual rights, and cooperation. To ensure these principles become a reality, a free press is important. There are three main reasons why:

A free press fights for the truth

Freedom of the press matters because a free press uncovers the truth. There are many issues – often very complicated ones – that journalists are trained to analyze and explain. Without newspapers, radio shows, blogs, etc, the average person would have little to no knowledge of what’s going on around them. Most people lack the time and resources to investigate issues and stories that affect them and their communities. That’s where journalists come in. Armed with skills like research and critical thinking, the best journalists know what questions to ask , what leads to pursue, and how to fact-check. Fact-checking is a vital element of a free press. If the press is not able to fact-check safely and effectively, the truth remains buried.

A free press holds power accountable

Many entities can benefit from the truth staying hidden, including governments. One of the free press’ main missions is serving as a watchdog on power. The press is the bridge between the people and powerful entities. If the press is not free but instead beholden to power, it simply serves as an extension of that power. Without freedom of the press, journalists who try to tell the truth when it threatens the state are not protected by the law. This makes censorship and suppression inevitable. Even if a state made it a goal to be more truthful and transparent, there’s always an agenda they would need to serve. In the case of corruption and human rights violations , a free press is essential to exposing abuses of power.

A free press informs voters and strengthens democracy

Informed voting is the third reason why freedom of the press is so important. Democracies only thrive when voters are as informed as possible. Being informed ensures people understand the issues at hand and what policies and politicians best represent them. The press is the body that informs by analyzing information, encouraging discussion, and fact-checking. The freer the press, the better informed voters can be. Without this freedom, voters would be at the mercy of politicians and special interest groups that want to win elections and promote specific legislation. It would be very difficult and time-consuming for voters to do all their work on their own. A strong media makes the process less complicated and offers valuable insight.

How freedom of the press is threatened

The press is threatened around the world. Some places are worse than others, but even in democracies, press freedom can face many challenges. Organizations like Reporters Without Borders track the number of journalists harassed, imprisoned, or killed. This info gives the world a sense of how serious the problem is. There are many threats to a free press, including:

Legal threats

Legal threats like libel and privacy lawsuits, source intimidation, and subpoenas for confidential information drain money and resources from news sources, delay or block stories, and make people afraid to talk to journalists.

Governmental threats

Government officials can make a journalist’s job much harder and even dangerous. Actions include threatening to take away licenses, using inflammatory language against the press, and tracking or even arresting journalists. This abuse of power sows distrust in journalists, makes them a target for violence, and dampens the media’s ability to get out important stories.

Harassment and physical violence

Being a journalist can be a very dangerous job. Harassment is very common, especially for female journalists. Stalking, threatening, doxing, and trolling all serve to intimidate journalists and discourage them from working. Harassment can escalate to physical violence and include attacks, bomb threats, stolen equipment, and murder.

Protecting freedom of the press

What helps ensure that the press stays free and flourishing? Legislation that protects journalists and freedom of the press is one of the most important steps. “Shield laws,” which are laws that provide journalists with an absolute or qualified privilege to refuse to reveal their sources, are found in many places. A shield law protects both the journalist and their source. In the United States, there is no federal shield law, so many activists are working toward this goal. On an individual level, citizens can help protect freedom of the press by staying informed about threats to press freedom and efforts to support free media. Supporting local newspapers is another way to stay informed and ensure that the issues most relevant to your daily life are being reported on. For the sake of democracy, freedom of the press is a right that every entity in society must care about and commit to protecting.

Learn more about freedom of the press in an online course .

You may also like

15 Great Charities to Donate to in 2024

15 Quotes Exposing Injustice in Society

14 Trusted Charities Helping Civilians in Palestine

The Great Migration: History, Causes and Facts

Social Change 101: Meaning, Examples, Learning Opportunities

Rosa Parks: Biography, Quotes, Impact

Top 20 Issues Women Are Facing Today

Top 20 Issues Children Are Facing Today

15 Root Causes of Climate Change

15 Facts about Rosa Parks

Abolitionist Movement: History, Main Ideas, and Activism Today

The Biggest 15 NGOs in the UK

About the author, emmaline soken-huberty.

Emmaline Soken-Huberty is a freelance writer based in Portland, Oregon. She started to become interested in human rights while attending college, eventually getting a concentration in human rights and humanitarianism. LGBTQ+ rights, women’s rights, and climate change are of special concern to her. In her spare time, she can be found reading or enjoying Oregon’s natural beauty with her husband and dog.

• About George Orwell
• Partners and Sponsors
• Accessibility
• Upcoming events
• The Orwell Festival
• The Orwell Memorial Lectures
• Books by Orwell
• Essays and other works
• Encountering Orwell
• Orwell Live
• About the prizes
• Reporting Homelessness
• Enter the Prizes
• Previous winners
• Orwell Fellows
• Introduction
• Enter the Prize
• Terms and Conditions
• Volunteering
• About Feedback
• Responding to Feedback
• Start your journey
• Inspiration
• Find Your Form
• Start Writing
• Reading Recommendations
• Previous themes
• Our offer for teachers
• Lesson Plans
• Events and Workshops
• Orwell in the Classroom
• GCSE Practice Papers
• The Orwell Youth Fellows
• Paisley Workshops

The Orwell Foundation

• The Orwell Prizes
• The Orwell Youth Prize

The Freedom of the Press

Proposed preface to Animal Farm , first published in the Times Literary Supplement on 15 September 1972 with an introduction by Sir Bernard Crick. Ian Angus found the original manuscript in 1972.

This material remains under copyright and is reproduced here with the kind permission of the Orwell Estate . The Orwell Foundation is an independent charity – please consider  making a donation  or becoming a Friend of the Foundation to help us maintain these resources for readers everywhere. 

This book was first thought of, so far as the central idea goes, in 1937, but was not written down until about the end of 1943. By the time when it came to be written it was obvious that there would be great difficulty in getting it published (in spite of the present book shortage which ensures that anything describable as a book will ‘sell’), and in the event it was refused by four publishers. Only one of these had any ideological motive. Two had been publishing anti-Russian books for years, and the other had no noticeable political colour. One publisher actually started by accepting the book, but after making the preliminary arrangements he decided to consult the Ministry of Information, who appear to have warned him, or at any rate strongly advised him, against publishing it. Here is an extract from his letter:

I mentioned the reaction I had had from an important official in the Ministry of Information with regard to Animal Farm. I must confess that this expression of opinion has given me seriously to think… I can see now that it might be regarded as something which it was highly ill-advised to publish at the present time. If the fable were addressed generally to dictators and dictatorships at large then publication would be all right, but the fable does follow, as I see now, so completely the progress of the Russian Soviets and their two dictators, that it can apply only to Russia, to the exclusion of the other dictatorships. Another thing: it would be less offensive if the predominant caste in the fable were not pigs[1]. I think the choice of pigs as the ruling caste will no doubt give offence to many people, and particularly to anyone who is a bit touchy, as undoubtedly the Russians are.

This kind of thing is not a good symptom. Obviously it is not desirable that a government department should have any power of censorship (except security censorship, which no one objects to in war time) over books which are not officially sponsored. But the chief danger to freedom of thought and speech at this moment is not the direct interference of the MOI or any official body. If publishers and editors exert themselves to keep certain topics out of print, it is not because they are frightened of prosecution but because they are frightened of public opinion. In this country intellectual cowardice is the worst enemy a writer or journalist has to face, and that fact does not seem to me to have had the discussion it deserves.

Any fairminded person with journalistic experience will admit that during this war official censorship has not been particularly irksome. We have not been subjected to the kind of totalitarian ‘co-ordination’ that it might have been reasonable to expect. The press has some justified grievances, but on the whole the Government has behaved well and has been surprisingly tolerant of minority opinions. The sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is largely voluntary.

Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban. Anyone who has lived long in a foreign country will know of instances of sensational items of news—things which on their own merits would get the big headlines—being kept right out of the British press, not because the Government intervened but because of a general tacit agreement that ‘it wouldn’t do’ to mention that particular fact. So far as the daily newspapers go, this is easy to understand. The British press is extremely centralised, and most of it is owned by wealthy men who have every motive to be dishonest on certain important topics. But the same kind of veiled censorship also operates in books and periodicals, as well as in plays, films and radio. At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is ‘not done’ to say it, just as in mid-Victorian times it was ‘not done’ to mention trousers in the presence of a lady. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals.

At this moment what is demanded by the prevailing orthodoxy is an uncritical admiration of Soviet Russia. Everyone knows this, nearly everyone acts on it. Any serious criticism of the Soviet régime, any disclosure of facts which the Soviet government would prefer to keep hidden, is next door to unprintable. And this nation-wide conspiracy to flatter our ally takes place, curiously enough, against a background of genuine intellectual tolerance. For though you are not allowed to criticise the Soviet government, at least you are reasonably free to criticise our own. Hardly anyone will print an attack on Stalin, but it is quite safe to attack Churchill, at any rate in books and periodicals. And throughout five years of war, during two or three of which we were fighting for national survival, countless books, pamphlets and articles advocating a compromise peace have been published without interference. More, they have been published without exciting much disapproval. So long as the prestige of the USSR is not involved, the principle of free speech has been reasonably well upheld. There are other forbidden topics, and I shall mention some of them presently, but the prevailing attitude towards the USSR is much the most serious symptom. It is, as it were, spontaneous, and is not due to the action of any pressure group.

The servility with which the greater part of the English intelligentsia have swallowed and repeated Russian propaganda from 1941 onwards would be quite astounding if it were not that they have behaved similarly on several earlier occasions. On one controversial issue after another the Russian viewpoint has been accepted without examination and then publicised with complete disregard to historical truth or intellectual decency. To name only one instance, the BBC celebrated the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Red Army without mentioning Trotsky. This was about as accurate as commemorating the battle of Trafalgar without mentioning Nelson, but it evoked no protest from the English intelligentsia. In the internal struggles in the various occupied countries, the British press has in almost all cases sided with the faction favoured by the Russians and libelled the opposing faction, sometimes suppressing material evidence in order to do so. A particularly glaring case was that of Colonel Mihailovich, the Jugoslav Chetnik leader. The Russians, who had their own Jugoslav protege in Marshal Tito, accused Mihailovich of collaborating with the Germans. This accusation was promptly taken up by the British press: Mihailovich’s supporters were given no chance of answering it, and facts contradicting it were simply kept out of print. In July of 1943 the Germans offered a reward of 100,000 gold crowns for the capture of Tito, and a similar reward for the capture of Mihailovich. The British press ‘splashed’ the reward for Tito, but only one paper mentioned (in small print) the reward for Mihailovich: and the charges of collaborating with the Germans continued. Very similar things happened during the Spanish civil war. Then, too, the factions on the Republican side which the Russians were determined to crush were recklessly libelled in the English leftwing press, and any statement in their defence even in letter form, was refused publication. At present, not only is serious criticism of the USSR considered reprehensible, but even the fact of the existence of such criticism is kept secret in some cases. For example, shortly before his death Trotsky had written a biography of Stalin. One may assume that it was not an altogether unbiased book, but obviously it was saleable. An American publisher had arranged to issue it and the book was in print — I believe the review copies had been sent out — when the USSR entered the war. The book was immediately withdrawn. Not a word about this has ever appeared in the British press, though clearly the existence of such a book, and its suppression, was a news item worth a few paragraphs.

It is important to distinguish between the kind of censorship that the English literary intelligentsia voluntarily impose upon themselves, and the censorship that can sometimes be enforced by pressure groups. Notoriously, certain topics cannot be discussed because of ‘vested interests’. The best-known case is the patent medicine racket. Again, the Catholic Church has considerable influence in the press and can silence criticism of itself to some extent. A scandal involving a Catholic priest is almost never given publicity, whereas an Anglican priest who gets into trouble (e.g. the Rector of Stiffkey) is headline news. It is very rare for anything of an anti-Catholic tendency to appear on the stage or in a film. Any actor can tell you that a play or film which attacks or makes fun of the Catholic Church is liable to be boycotted in the press and will probably be a failure. But this kind of thing is harmless, or at least it is understandable. Any large organisation will look after its own interests as best it can, and overt propaganda is not a thing to object to. One would no more expect the Daily Worker to publicise unfavourable facts about the USSR than one would expect the Catholic Herald to denounce the Pope. But then every thinking person knows the Daily Worker and the Catholic Herald for what they are. What is disquieting is that where the USSR and its policies are concerned one cannot expect intelligent criticism or even, in many cases, plain honesty from Liberal writers and journalists who are under no direct pressure to falsify their opinions. Stalin is sacrosanct and certain aspects of his policy must not be seriously discussed. This rule has been almost universally observed since 1941, but it had operated, to a greater extent than is sometimes realised, for ten years earlier than that. Throughout that time, criticism of the Soviet régime from the left could only obtain a hearing with difficulty. There was a huge output of anti-Russian literature, but nearly all of it was from the Conservative angle and manifestly dishonest, out of date and actuated by sordid motives. On the other side there was an equally huge and almost equally dishonest stream of pro-Russian propaganda, and what amounted to a boycott on anyone who tried to discuss all-important questions in a grown-up manner. You could, indeed, publish anti-Russian books, but to do so was to make sure of being ignored or misrepresented by nearly the whole of the highbrow press. Both publicly and privately you were warned that it was ‘not done’. What you said might possibly be true, but it was ‘inopportune’ and played into the hands of this or that reactionary interest. This attitude was usually defended on the ground that the international situation, and the urgent need for an Anglo-Russian alliance, demanded it; but it was clear that this was a rationalisation. The English intelligentsia, or a great part of it, had developed a nationalistic loyalty towards me USSR, and in their hearts they felt that to cast any doubt on the wisdom of Stalin was a kind of blasphemy. Events in Russia and events elsewhere were to be judged by different standards. The endless executions in the purges of 1936-8 were applauded by life-long opponents of capital punishment, and it was considered equally proper to publicise famines when they happened in India and to conceal them when they happened in the Ukraine. And if this was true before the war, the intellectual atmosphere is certainly no better now.

But now to come back to this book of mine. The reaction towards it of most English intellectuals will be quite simple: ‘It oughtn’t to have been published.’ Naturally, those reviewers who understand the art of denigration will not attack it on political grounds but on literary ones. They will say that it is a dull, silly book and a disgraceful waste of paper. This may well be true, but it is obviously not the whole of the story. One does not say that a book ‘ought not to have been published’ merely because it is a bad book. After all, acres of rubbish are printed daily and no one bothers. The English intelligentsia, or most of them, will object to this book because it traduces their Leader and (as they see it) does harm to the cause of progress. If it did the opposite they would have nothing to say against it, even if its literary faults were ten times as glaring as they are. The success of, for instance, the Left Book Club over a period of four or five years shows how willing they are to tolerate both scurrility and slipshod writing, provided that it tells them what they want to hear.

The issue involved here is quite a simple one: Is every opinion, however unpopular — however foolish, even — entitled to a hearing? Put it in that form and nearly any English intellectual will feel that he ought to say ‘Yes’. But give it a concrete shape, and ask, ‘How about an attack on Stalin? Is that entitled to a hearing?’, and the answer more often than not will be ‘No’. In that case the current orthodoxy happens to be challenged, and so the principle of free speech lapses. Now, when one demands liberty of speech and of the press, one is not demanding absolute liberty. There always must be, or at any rate there always will be, some degree of censorship, so long as organised societies endure. But freedom, as Rosa Luxembourg [sic] said, is ‘freedom for the other fellow’. The same principle is contained in the famous words of Voltaire: ‘I detest what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it.’ If the intellectual liberty which without a doubt has been one of the distinguishing marks of western civilisation means anything at all, it means that everyone shall have the right to say and to print what he believes to be the truth, provided only that it does not harm the rest of the community in some quite unmistakable way. Both capitalist democracy and the western versions of Socialism have till recently taken that principle for granted. Our Government, as I have already pointed out, still makes some show of respecting it. The ordinary people in the street – partly, perhaps, because they are not sufficiently interested in ideas to be intolerant about them – still vaguely hold that ‘I suppose everyone’s got a right to their own opinion.’ It is only, or at any rate it is chiefly, the literary and scientific intelligentsia, the very people who ought to be the guardians of liberty, who are beginning to despise it, in theory as well as in practice.

One of the peculiar phenomena of our time is the renegade Liberal. Over and above the familiar Marxist claim that ‘bourgeois liberty’ is an illusion, there is now a widespread tendency to argue that one can only defend democracy by totalitarian methods. If one loves democracy, the argument runs, one must crush its enemies by no matter what means. And who are its enemies? It always appears that they are not only those who attack it openly and consciously, but those who ‘objectively’ endanger it by spreading mistaken doctrines. In other words, defending democracy involves destroying all independence of thought. This argument was used, for instance, to justify the Russian purges. The most ardent Russophile hardly believed that all of the victims were guilty of all the things they were accused of: but by holding heretical opinions they ‘objectively’ harmed the régime, and therefore it was quite right not only to massacre them but to discredit them by false accusations. The same argument was used to justify the quite conscious lying that went on in the leftwing press about the Trotskyists and other Republican minorities in the Spanish civil war. And it was used again as a reason for yelping against habeas corpus when Mosley was released in 1943.

These people don’t see that if you encourage totalitarian methods, the time may come when they will be used against you instead of for you. Make a habit of imprisoning Fascists without trial, and perhaps the process won’t stop at Fascists. Soon after the suppressed Daily Worker had been reinstated, I was lecturing to a workingmen’s college in South London. The audience were working-class and lower-middle class intellectuals — the same sort of audience that one used to meet at Left Book Club branches. The lecture had touched on the freedom of the press, and at the end, to my astonishment, several questioners stood up and asked me: Did I not think that the lifting of the ban on the Daily Worker was a great mistake? When asked why, they said that it was a paper of doubtful loyalty and ought not to be tolerated in war time. I found myself defending the Daily Worker, which has gone out of its way to libel me more than once. But where had these people learned this essentially totalitarian outlook? Pretty certainly they had learned it from the Communists themselves! Tolerance and decency are deeply rooted in England, but they are not indestructible, and they have to be kept alive partly by conscious effort. The result of preaching totalitarian doctrines is to weaken the instinct by means of which free peoples know what is or is not dangerous. The case of Mosley illustrates this. In 1940 it was perfectly right to intern Mosley, whether or not he had committed any technical crime. We were fighting for our lives and could not allow a possible quisling to go free. To keep him shut up, without trial, in 1943 was an outrage. The general failure to see this was a bad symptom, though it is true that the agitation against Mosley’s release was partly factitious and partly a rationalisation of other discontents. But how much of the present slide towards Fascist ways of thought is traceable to the ‘anti-Fascism’ of the past ten years and the unscrupulousness it has entailed?

It is important to realise that the current Russomania is only a symptom of the general weakening of the western liberal tradition. Had the MOI chipped in and definitely vetoed the publication of this book, the bulk of the English intelligentsia would have seen nothing disquieting in this. Uncritical loyalty to the USSR happens to be the current orthodoxy, and where the supposed interests of the USSR are involved they are willing to tolerate not only censorship but the deliberate falsification of history. To name one instance. At the death of John Reed, the author of Ten Days that Shook the World — first-hand account of the early days of the Russian Revolution — the copyright of the book passed into the hands of the British Communist Party, to whom I believe Reed had bequeathed it. Some years later the British Communists, having destroyed the original edition of the book as completely as they could, issued a garbled version from which they had eliminated mentions of Trotsky and also omitted the introduction written by Lenin. If a radical intelligentsia had still existed in Britain, this act of forgery would have been exposed and denounced in every literary paper in the country. As it was there was little or no protest. To many English intellectuals it seemed quite a natural thing to do. And this tolerance or plain dishonesty means much more than that admiration for Russia happens to be fashionable at this moment. Quite possibly that particular fashion will not last. For all I know, by the time this book is published my view of the Soviet régime may be the generally-accepted one. But what use would that be in itself? To exchange one orthodoxy for another is not necessarily an advance. The enemy is the gramophone mind, whether or not one agrees with the record that is being played at the moment.

I am well acquainted with all the arguments against freedom of thought and speech — the arguments which claim that it cannot exist, and the arguments which claim that it ought not to. I answer simply that they don’t convince me and that our civilisation over a period of four hundred years has been founded on the opposite notice. For quite a decade past I have believed that the existing Russian régime is a mainly evil thing, and I claim the right to say so, in spite of the fact that we are allies with the USSR in a war which I want to see won. If I had to choose a text to justify myself, I should choose the line from Milton:

By the known rules of ancient liberty.

The word ancient emphasises the fact that intellectual freedom is a deep-rooted tradition without which our characteristic western culture could only doubtfully exist. From that tradition many of our intellectuals are visibly turning away. They have accepted the principle that a book should be published or suppressed, praised or damned, not on its merits but according to political expediency. And others who do not actually hold this view assent to it from sheer cowardice. An example of this is the failure of the numerous and vocal English pacifists to raise their voices against the prevalent worship of Russian militarism. According to those pacifists, all violence is evil, and they have urged us at every stage of the war to give in or at least to make a compromise peace. But how many of them have ever suggested that war is also evil when it is waged by the Red Army? Apparently the Russians have a right to defend themselves, whereas for us to do [so] is a deadly sin. One can only explain this contradiction in one way: that is, by a cowardly desire to keep in with the bulk of the intelligentsia, whose patriotism is directed towards the USSR rather than towards Britain. I know that the English intelligentsia have plenty of reason for their timidity and dishonesty, indeed I know by heart the arguments by which they justify themselves. But at least let us have no more nonsense about defending liberty against Fascism. If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. The common people still vaguely subscribe to that doctrine and act on it. In our country — it is not the same in all countries: it was not so in republican France, and it is not so in the USA today — it is the liberals who fear liberty and the intellectuals who want to do dirt on the intellect: it is to draw attention to that fact that I have written this preface.

• George Orwell and the Battle for Animal Farm , a short film from The Orwell Foundation
• Become a Friend
• The Orwell Prize for Reporting Homelessness
• Become an International Friend

We use cookies. By browsing our site you agree to our use of cookies. Accept

Explore the Constitution

The constitution.

• Read the Full Text

Dive Deeper

Constitution 101 course.

• The Drafting Table
• Supreme Court Cases Library
• Founders' Library
• Constitutional Rights: Origins & Travels

Start your constitutional learning journey

• News & Debate Overview
• Constitution Daily Blog
• America's Town Hall Programs
• Special Projects
• Media Library

America’s Town Hall

Watch videos of recent programs.

• Education Overview

Constitution 101 Curriculum

• Classroom Resources by Topic
• Classroom Resources Library
• Live Online Events
• Professional Learning Opportunities
• Constitution Day Resources

Explore our new 15-unit high school curriculum.

• Explore the Museum
• Plan Your Visit
• Exhibits & Programs
• Field Trips & Group Visits
• Host Your Event
• Buy Tickets

New exhibit

The first amendment, interpretation & debate, freedom of speech and the press, matters of debate, common interpretation, fixing free speech, frontiers for free speech.

by Geoffrey R. Stone

Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor of Law at the University of Chicago Law School

by Eugene Volokh

Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law; Founder and Co-Author of "The Volokh Conspiracy" at Reason Magazine

“Congress shall make no law . . .  abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” What does this mean today? Generally speaking, it means that the government may not jail, fine, or impose civil liability on people or organizations based on what they say or write, except in exceptional circumstances.

Although the First Amendment says “Congress,” the Supreme Court has held that speakers are protected against all government agencies and officials: federal, state, and local, and legislative, executive, or judicial. The First Amendment does not protect speakers, however, against private individuals or organizations, such as private employers, private colleges, or private landowners. The First Amendment restrains only the government.

The Supreme Court has interpreted “speech” and “press” broadly as covering not only talking, writing, and printing, but also broadcasting, using the Internet, and other forms of expression. The freedom of speech also applies to symbolic expression, such as displaying flags, burning flags, wearing armbands, burning crosses, and the like.

The Supreme Court has held that restrictions on speech because of its content —that is, when the government targets the speaker’s message—generally violate the First Amendment. Laws that prohibit people from criticizing a war, opposing abortion, or advocating high taxes are examples of unconstitutional content-based restrictions. Such laws are thought to be especially problematic because they distort public debate and contradict a basic principle of self-governance: that the government cannot be trusted to decide what ideas or information “the people” should be allowed to hear.

There are generally three situations in which the government can constitutionally restrict speech under a less demanding standard.

1. In some circumstances, the Supreme Court has held that certain types of speech are of only “low” First Amendment value, such as:

a. Defamation: False statements that damage a person’s reputations can lead to civil liability (and even to criminal punishment), especially when the speaker deliberately lied or said things they knew were likely false. New York Times v. Sullivan (1964).

b. True threats: Threats to commit a crime (for example, “I’ll kill you if you don’t give me your money”) can be punished. Watts v. United States (1969).

c. “Fighting words”: Face-to-face personal insults that are likely to lead to an immediate fight are punishable. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942). But this does not include political statements that offend others and provoke them to violence.  For example, civil rights or anti-abortion protesters cannot be silenced merely because passersby respond violently to their speech. Cox v. Louisiana (1965).

d. Obscenity: Hard-core, highly sexually explicit pornography is not protected by the First Amendment. Miller v. California (1973). In practice, however, the government rarely prosecutes online distributors of such material.

e. Child pornography: Photographs or videos involving actual children engaging in sexual conduct are punishable, because allowing such materials would create an incentive to sexually abuse children in order to produce such material. New York v. Ferber (1982).

f. Commercial advertising: Speech advertising a product or service is constitutionally protected, but not as much as other speech. For instance, the government may ban misleading commercial advertising, but it generally can’t ban misleading political speech. Virginia Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Council (1976).

Outside these narrow categories of “low” value speech, most other content-based restrictions on speech are presumptively unconstitutional. Even entertainment, vulgarity, “hate speech” (bigoted speech about particular races, religions, sexual orientations, and the like), blasphemy (speech that offends people’s religious sensibilities), and violent video games are protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has generally been very reluctant to expand the list of “low” value categories of speech.

2. The government can restrict speech under a less demanding standard when the speaker is in a special relationship to the government. For example, the speech of government employees and of students in public schools can be restricted, even based on content, when their speech is incompatible with their status as public officials or students. A teacher in a public school, for example, can be punished for encouraging students to experiment with illegal drugs, and a government employee who has access to classified information generally can be prohibited from disclosing that information. Pickering v. Board of Education (1968).

3. The government can also restrict speech under a less demanding standard when it does so without regard to the content or message of the speech. Content-neutral restrictions, such as restrictions on noise, blocking traffic, and large signs (which can distract drivers and clutter the landscape), are generally constitutional as long as they are “reasonable.” Because such laws apply neutrally to all speakers without regard to their message, they are less threatening to the core First Amendment concern that government should not be permitted to favor some ideas over others. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC (1994). But not all content-neutral restrictions are viewed as reasonable; for example, a law prohibiting all demonstrations in public parks or all leafleting on public streets would violate the First Amendment. Schneider v. State (1939).

Courts have not always been this protective of free expression. In the nineteenth century, for example, courts allowed punishment of blasphemy, and during and shortly after World War I the Supreme Court held that speech tending to promote crime—such as speech condemning the military draft or praising anarchism—could be punished. Schenck v. United States (1919). Moreover, it was not until 1925 that the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment limited state and local governments, as well as the federal government. Gitlow v. New York (1925).

But starting in the 1920s, the Supreme Court began to read the First Amendment more broadly, and this trend accelerated in the 1960s. Today, the legal protection offered by the First Amendment is stronger than ever before in our history.

Three issues involving the freedom of speech are most pressing for the future.

Money, Politics, and the First Amendment

The first pressing issue concerns the regulation of money in the political process. Put simply, the question is this: To what extent, and in what circumstances, can the government constitutionally restrict political expenditures and contributions in order to “improve” the democratic process?

In its initial encounters with this question, the Supreme Court held that political expenditures and contributions are “speech” within the meaning of the First Amendment because they are intended to facilitate political expression by political candidates and others. The Court also recognized, however, that political expenditures and contributions could be regulated consistent with the First Amendment if the government could demonstrate a sufficiently important justification. In Buckley v. Valeo (1976), for example, the Court held that the government could constitutionally limit the amount that individuals could contribute to political candidates in order to reduce the risk of undue influence, and in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003), the Court held that the government could constitutionally limit the amount that corporations could spend in the political process in order to influence electoral outcomes.

In more recent cases, though, in a series of five-to-four decisions, the Supreme Court has overruled McConnell and held unconstitutional most governmental efforts to regulate political expenditures and contributions. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010); McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (2014). As a result of these more recent decisions, almost all government efforts to limit the impact of money in the political process have been held unconstitutional, with the consequence that corporations and wealthy individuals now have an enormous impact on American politics.

Those who object to these decisions maintain that regulations of political expenditures and contributions are content-neutral restrictions of speech that should be upheld as long as the government has a sufficiently important justification. They argue that the need to prevent what they see as the corruption and distortion of American politics caused by the excessive influence of a handful of very wealthy individuals and corporations is a sufficiently important government interest to justify limits on the amount that those individuals and corporations should be permitted to spend in the electoral process.

Because these recent cases have all been five-to-four decisions, it remains to be seen whether a differently constituted set of justices in the future will adhere to the current approach, or whether they will ultimately overrule or at least narrowly construe those decisions. In many ways, this is the most fundamental First Amendment question that will confront the Supreme Court and the nation in the years to come.

The Meaning of “Low” Value Speech

The second pressing free speech issue concerns the scope of “low” value speech. In recent years, the Supreme Court has taken a narrow view of the low value concept, suggesting that, in order for a category of speech to fall within that concept, there has to have been a long history of government regulation of the category in question. This is true, for example, of such low value categories as defamation, obscenity, and threats. An important question for the future is whether the Court will adhere to this approach.

The primary justification for the Court’s insistence on a history of regulation is that this limits the discretion of the justices to pick-and-choose which categories of expression should be deemed to have only low First Amendment value. A secondary justification for the Court’s approach is that a history of regulation of a category of expression provides some basis in experience for evaluating the possible effects – and dangers – of declaring a new category of speech to have only low First Amendment value.

Why does this doctrine matter? To cite one illustration, under the Court’s current approach, so-called “hate speech” – speech that expressly denigrates individuals on the basis of such characteristics as race, religion, gender, national origin, and sexual orientation – does not constitute low value speech because it has not historically been subject to regulation. As a result, except in truly extraordinary circumstances, such expression cannot be regulated consistent with the First Amendment. Almost every other nation allows such expression to be regulated and, indeed, prohibited, on the theory that it does not further the values of free expression and is incompatible with other fundamental values of society.

Similarly, under the Court’s approach to low value speech it is unclear whether civil or criminal actions for “invasion of privacy” can be reconciled with the First Amendment. For example, can an individual be punished for distributing on the Internet “private” information about other persons without their consent? Suppose, for example, an individual posts naked photos of a former lover on the Internet. Is that speech protected by the First Amendment, or can it be restricted as a form of “low” value speech? This remains an unresolved question.

Leaks of Classified Information

The Supreme Court has held that the government cannot constitutionally prohibit the publication of classified information unless it can demonstrate that the publication or distribution of that information will cause a clear and present danger of grave harm to the national security. New York Times v. United States (The “Pentagon Papers” case) (1971). At the same time, though, the Court has held that government employees who gain access to such classified information can be restricted in their unauthorized disclosure of that information. Snepp v. United States (1980). It remains an open question, however, whether a government employee who leaks information that discloses an unconstitutional, unlawful, or unwise classified program can be punished for doing so. This issue has been raised by a number of recent incidents, including the case of Edward Snowden. At some point in the future, the Court will have to decide whether and to what extent the actions of government leakers like Edward Snowden are protected by the First Amendment.

I like Professor Stone’s list of important issues. I think speech about elections, including speech that costs money, must remain protected, whether it’s published by individuals, nonprofit corporations, labor unions, media corporations, or nonmedia business corporations. (Direct contributions to candidates, as opposed to independent speech about them, can be restricted, as the Court has held.) And I think restrictions on “hate speech” should remain unconstitutional. But I agree these are likely to be heavily debated issues in the coming years. I’d like to add three more issues as well.

Professional-Client Speech

Many professionals serve their clients by speaking. Psychotherapists try to help their patients by talking with them. Doctors make diagnoses, offer predictions, and recommend treatments. Lawyers give legal advice; financial planners, financial advice. Some of these professionals also do things (such as prescribe drugs, perform surgeries, or file court documents that have legal effect). But much of what they do is speak.

Yet the law heavily regulates such speakers. It bars people from giving any legal, medical, psychiatric, or similar advice unless they first get licenses (which can take years and hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of education to get)—though the government couldn’t require a license for people to become journalists or authors. The law lets clients sue professionals for malpractice, arguing that the professionals’ opinions or predictions proved to be “unreasonable” and harmful, though similar lawsuits against newspapers or broadcasters would be unconstitutional.

And the law sometimes forbids or compels particular speech by these professionals. Some states ban psychiatrists from offering counseling aimed at changing young patients’ sexual orientation. Florida has restricted doctors’ questioning their patients about whether the patients own guns. Many states, hoping to persuade women not to get abortions, require doctors to say certain things or show certain things to women who are seeking abortions. The federal government has tried to punish doctors who recommend that their patients use medical marijuana (which is illegal under federal law, but which can be gotten in many states with the doctor’s recommendation).

When are these laws constitutional? Moreover, if there is a First Amendment exception that allows such regulations of professional-client speech, which professions does it cover? What about, for instance, tour guides, fortunetellers, veterinarians, or diet advisors? Courts are only beginning to confront the First Amendment implications of these sorts of restrictions, and the degree to which the government’s interest in protecting clients—and in preventing behavior that the government sees as harmful—can justify restricting professional-client speech.

Crime-Facilitating Speech

Some speech contains information that helps people commit crimes, or get away with committing crimes. Sometimes this is general information, for instance about how bombs are made, how locks can be picked, how deadly viruses can be created, how technological protections for copyrighted works can be easily evaded, or how a contract killer can get away with his crime.

Sometimes this is specific information, such as the names of crime witnesses that criminals might want to silence, the location of police officers whom criminals might want to avoid, or the names of undercover officers or CIA agents. Indeed, sometimes this can be as familiar as people flashing lights to alert drivers that a police officer is watching; people are occasionally prosecuted for this, because they are helping others get away with speeding.

Sometimes this speech is said specifically with the purpose of promoting crime—but sometimes it is said for other purposes: consider chemistry books that talk about explosives; newspaper articles that mention people’s names so the readers don’t feel anything is being concealed; or novels that accurately describe crimes just for entertainment. And sometimes it is said for political purposes, for instance when someone describes how easy it is to evade copyright law or proposed laws prohibiting 3-D printing of guns, in trying to explain why those laws need to be rejected.

Surprisingly, the Supreme Court has never explained when such speech can be restricted. The narrow incitement exception, which deals with speech that aims to persuade people to commit imminent crimes, is not a good fit for speech that, deliberately or not, informs people about how to commit crimes at some point in the future. This too is a field that the Supreme Court will likely have to address in coming decades.

“Hostile Environment Harassment” Rules

Finally, some government agencies, courts, and universities have reasoned that the government may restrict speech that sufficiently offends employees, students, or business patrons based on race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, and the like. Here’s how the theory goes: Laws ban discrimination based on such identity traits in employment, education, and public accommodations. And when speech is “severe or pervasive” enough to create a “hostile or offensive environment” based on those traits, such speech becomes a form of discrimination. Therefore, the argument goes, a wide range of speech—such as display of Confederate flags, unwanted religious proselytizing, speech sharply criticizing veterans, speech suggesting that Muslims are disloyal, display of sexually suggestive materials, sexually-themed humor, sex-based job titles (such as “foreman” or “draftsman”), and more—can lead to lawsuits.

Private employers are paying attention, and restricting such speech by their employees. Universities are enacting speech codes restricting such speech. Even speech in restaurants and other public places, whether put up by the business owner or said by patrons, can lead to liability for the owner. And this isn’t limited to offensive speech said to a particular person who doesn’t want to hear it. Even speech posted on the wall or overheard in the lunchroom can lead to liability, and would thus be suppressed by “hostile environment” law.

To be sure, private employers and business owners aren’t bound by the First Amendment, and are thus generally free to restrict such speech on their property. And even government employers and enterprises generally have broad latitude to control what is said on their property (setting aside public universities, which generally have much less such latitude). But here the government is pressuring all employers, universities, and businesses to impose speech codes, by threatening liability on those who don’t impose such codes. And that government pressure is subject to First Amendment scrutiny.

Some courts have rejected some applications of this “hostile environment” theory on First Amendment grounds; others have upheld other applications. This too is something the Supreme Court will have to consider.

Modal title

Modal body text goes here.

Share with Students

Threats to freedom of press: Violence, disinformation & censorship

The free flow of ideas: Freedom of the press, the journalists on the frontline

The way we see the world and act on it depends on the information we have. This is why freedom of expression and freedom of the press are fundamental rights, and the free flow of ideas is a key driver of vibrant societies and human progress. UNESCO works to reinforce the tools, skills and conditions that make these rights real.

Peter R. De Vries was on his way to a car park, walking past crowds of people enjoying post-work drinks in the heart of Amsterdam. It was the early evening of 6 July 2021 and the veteran crime journalist had just left a nearby TV studio, where he had appeared as a talk show guest. 

De Vries was a household name in the Netherlands, where his own TV show had run for 17 years, working with crime victims’ families, pursuing unsolved cases and exposing miscarriages of justice. The journalist had recently refused police protection after receiving death threats. A year earlier, he had agreed to act as an adviser to the key prosecution witness against the suspected head of a cocaine trafficking gang. 

As De Vries walked to his car, several bullets were fired at him. He died from his injuries nine days later. 

Threats and violence against journalists

De Vries’ death prompted outpourings of condemnation and anger in Europe. Yet, many journalists and reporters around the world today risk their lives to uncover the truth. Every four days a journalist is killed in the world. In 2020 alone, according to UNESCO, 62 journalists were killed just for doing their jobs. Between 2006 and 2020, over 1,200 media professionals lost their lives in the same way. In nine out of ten cases, the killers go unpunished.

In many countries investigating corruption, trafficking, human rights violations, and political or environmental issues puts journalists’ lives at risk.

62 journalists killed in 2020,

just for doing their jobs: UNESCO

Crimes against journalists have an enormous impact on society as a whole, because they prevent people from making informed decisions.

To help create the kind of environment journalists need to perform their vital work, UNESCO has set up several initiatives, including a global plan of action for the safety of journalists, in order to support Member States to establish or improve mechanisms for prevention, protection and prosecution to bring justice to cases of murdered journalists. One key aspect of UNESCO’s work is first and foremost to report and publicly condemn all cases of killing of journalists. UNESCO also produces training materials and best practices to help improve journalists’ skills and knowledge on international standards for freedom of expression, investigative journalism and reporting on conflicts.

For the past 40 years, UNESCO’s International Programme for the Development of Communication (IPDC)   has focused on targeting the most pressing issues concerning communication development around the world. It helps keep journalists safe, supports the development of media in countries where it is most needed, promotes freedom of expression and public access to information.

UNESCO's initiatives

Fostering Freedom of Expression

Women journalists facing risks and abuse

Across the world, journalists face countless threats every day, ranging from kidnapping, torture and arbitrary detention to disinformation campaigns and harassment, especially on social media. Women journalists are at particular risk. 

According to UNESCO research, 73 per cent of women journalists surveyed said they had been threatened, intimidated and insulted online in connection with their work. Often, the failure to investigate and address online attacks has real-life consequences for women journalists, affecting their mental and physical health. In some cases, online threats can escalate to physical violence and even murder, as the murder of Maltese journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia in 2017 demonstrated.

#JournalistsToo:

For many years, Caruana Galizia had been the most prominent investigative journalist in Malta. She had worked as a columnist and editor in various newspapers. She later set up the website Running Commentary, where she published some of her most significant investigative journalism, exposing tax abuse and corruption in Malta and abroad. Harassment, threats and attempts to silence the journalist had been a constant presence throughout her career.

Online threats and violence against women journalists are designed to belittle, humiliate and shame them, as well as induce fear, silence and discredit them professionally. To respond to increasing threats against women journalists, UNESCO has published a research paper aimed at associations, politicians and governments: The Chilling . It seeks to promote discussion about effective legislative and organizational initiatives that are designed to protect women journalists.

Training judges and prosecutors to defend press freedom

Caruana Galizia’s biggest fear was that her example of physical threats, online harassments and libel lawsuits might discourage other journalists from speaking out. At the time of her death, Caruana Galizia was facing 48 libel suits. Award-winning journalist and Nobel Peace Prize recipient Maria Ressa also faced several lawsuits before being found guilty of libel in the Philippines in 2020.

What you are seeing is death by a thousand cuts for press freedom and democracy. It joins the messaging that was pushed out on social media that “journalists equal criminals.

Ressa and a former colleague at the news site she founded, Rappler, were convicted of cyber libel by a court in Manila after they published an article linking a businessman to illegal activities. During her career, Ressa has been arrested and has been subject to a sustained campaign of gendered online abuse, threats and harassment, which at one point, resulted in her receiving an average of over 90 hateful messages an hour on Facebook.

Often based on meritless or exaggerated claims, these lawsuits are brought in order to pressure a journalist or human rights defender, rather than to vindicate a right.

That is why judges and prosecutors play an important role in protecting journalists from threats and harassment, as well as promoting prompt and effective criminal proceedings when attacks occur.

When attacks against journalists go unpunished, the legal system and safety frameworks have failed everyone.

In recent years, UNESCO has trained nearly 23,000 judicial officials, including judges, prosecutors and lawyers, through several workshops on media and journalist law, training courses and online webinars, in partnership with universities and educational institutions like the Knight Center for Journalism at the University of Austin, Texas (USA). Training focuses on international standards related to freedom of expression and the safety of journalists, placing a particular focus on issues of impunity. In 2021, UNESCO’s online conference The role of the judiciary and international cooperation to foster safety of journalists – What works? explored effective ways in which judges, prosecutors and lawyers, as well as regional human rights courts and judicial training institutes, can combat impunity for crimes against journalists.

The fight against misinformation and censorship

The threats to freedom of expression and democracy also come from misinformation and censorship. The COVID-19 pandemic and the ensuing pandemic of misinformation have demonstrated that access to facts and science can be a matter of life and death.  In the first three months of 2020, almost 6,000 people around the world were hospitalized because of coronavirus misinformation, according to a paper published in the American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene . During this period, researchers say at least 800 people may have died due to misinformation related to COVID-19.

In May 2020, at the very beginning of the pandemic, the Knight Center, with the support of UNESCO and the World Health Organization (WHO), launched an online course on how to empower journalists, communication workers and content creators countering the phenomenon of disinformation related to the pandemic. The course attracted nearly 9,000 students from 162 countries. ‘2020 was surely the most important year for the fact-checking community,’ said journalist Cristina Tardáguila, who was the course instructor and has been involved in global initiatives against disinformation as associate director of the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN).

Journalism in a Pandemic: Covering COVID-19 Now and in the Future is an online self-directed course available in eight languages:  Arabic ,  Chinese ,  English ,  French ,  Hindi ,  Portuguese ,  Russian and  Spanish . 

Journalists covering the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines have received support through a live webinar, Covering the COVID-19 Vaccines: What Journalists Need to Know.  The recording is now available in 13 languages : Arabic, Bambara, Chinese, Dari, English, French, Guarani, Hindi, Pashto, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish and Wolof.

The media can also take an important part in understanding complex issues such as climate change and fighting the misinformation that surrounds it. In the face of climate change, journalists have the ability to enlighten the public and be the link between scientists and citizens by highlighting the urgency of the situation, but also tell stories that are positive and inspire solutions.

Getting the Message Across: Reporting on Climate Change and Sustainable Development in Asia and the Pacific

UNESCO has supported the publication of a handbook for journalists covering climate change. Journalists are key to ensuring that stories of destruction as well as of resistance are shared, in order to get the message across about climate change and avoid misinformation.

The power of community radios

The struggle to protect journalists and promote freedom of expression is just one of the pillars helping build knowledge societies that have the power to transform economies and communities. Universal access to information and knowledge as well as the respect for cultural and linguistic diversity are essential to building peace, sustainable economic development and intercultural dialogue.

The Syrian Hour is a UNESCO-funded project that produces a bi-weekly radio programme, aired on Yarmouk FM radio station in Irbid, northern Jordan, where there is a large Syrian refugee population. 

Syrian Hour

The programme trains young Syrians in radio broadcasting skills to host the shows while the shows themselves provide vital information and support to displaced Syrian refugees residing in Jordan. Majd Al Sammouri is one of the young people being trained to host The Syrian Hour. 

The first paths of my dreams were at the Faculty of Media and Mass Communication at the University of Damascus, a road I thought was lost forever after finding refuge in Jordan. Yarmouk FM was the compass that put me back to the streets of my dreams.

Many Syrian refugees who fled the war to Jordan still lack awareness about their security, liberty and protection rights and what is available to them in terms of food-assistance, education, health or psychosocial support. Often, their precarious refugee status makes them too afraid to approach authorities and humanitarian organizations.

Majd and his young colleagues provide much-needed reliable information and support to the refugee community.

Community radio is a powerful tool because it has the potential to reach out to people with little or no access to information. It is an efficient mechanism for educating and informing people living in remote areas about key issues such as health, education and sustainable development.

UNESCO is supporting and promoting community radios as a means to facilitate social communication and support democratic processes within societies.

Community radios are also being used to promote oral traditions. For example, in Bandafassi, Senegal, the community radio broadcasts stories and proverbs, traditional music and the history of the various villages. This is one of the many small steps towards building pluralistic and diverse media that provide free impartial information options to empower the public to make their choices towards peace, sustainability, poverty eradication and human rights.

UNESCO is supporting and promoting community radios

Fostering freedom of speech.

UNESCO works to foster free, independent and pluralistic media in print, broadcast and online. Media that adhere to this model enhance freedom of speech as well as contribute to peace, sustainability, poverty eradication and human rights.

#TruthNeverDies

#TruthNeverDies is a campaign developed jointly by UNESCO and communication agency DDB Paris to commemorate the  International Day to End Impunity for Crimes against Journalists  on 2 November.

Women Make the News 

Women Make the News is a global initiative aimed at raising awareness on issues relating to gender equality in and through the media, driving debate and encouraging action-oriented solutions to meet global objectives.

#HerMomentsMatter  

#HerMomentsMatter is a continuation of UNESCO’s World Radio Day campaign and aims to promote fairer coverage of women athletes. Women represent just 7 per cent of sportspeople seen, heard or read about in the media, while only 4 per cent of sports stories focus primarily on women. 

Remote Radio Week

Community media, whether broadcast or online, are key to ensuring media pluralism and freedom of expression. They are also an indicator of a healthy democratic society.

In partnership with the World Health Organization (WHO), UNESCO has launched a free online training for radio stations to develop their capacities to broadcast remotely.

AI and Facial Recognition webinar

This webinar about artificial intelligence (AI) and facial recognition, organized by UNESCO, touches on the pressing issues of facial recognition and the concerns it raises about the widespread adoption of AI and human rights. As AI is developing rapidly, it is important to understand its developments, which may have profound and potentially adverse impacts on individuals and society.

Webinar on Artificial Intelligence and Facial Recognition

World atlas of languages.

The World Atlas of Languages is an unprecedented initiative to preserve, revitalize and promote global linguistic diversity and multilingualism as a unique heritage and treasure of humanity. The project aims to stimulate new research and innovation, create demand for new language resources and tools, help support language policy and legislation, and forge new partnerships and collaboration in the global community to open up access to information.  

World Digital Library

Launched in 2009, the World Digital Library is a project of the U.S. Library of Congress, with the support of UNESCO, and contributions from libraries, archives, museums, educational institutions and international organizations around the world. The WDL seeks to preserve and share some of the world’s most important cultural objects, increasing access to cultural treasures and significant historical documents, to enable discovery, scholarship and use.

UNESCO/Guillermo Cano World Press Freedom Prize

Created in 1997, the annual UNESCO/Guillermo Cano World Press Freedom Prize honours an individual, organisation or institution that has made an outstanding contribution to the defence and, or promotion of press freedom anywhere in the world, especially when this has been achieved in the face of danger. It is named after Guillermo Cano Isaza, a Colombian journalist who was assassinated in front of the offices of his newspaper El Espectador in Bogotá, Colombia on 17 December 1986.

UNESCO / Guillermo Cano

World Press Freedom Prize

Related items

• Information and communication

Essay On Freedom Of Press

Introduction: A press is the symbol of a free people. An independent well-informed press is a powerful check on arbitrary governments and irresponsible administrators.

‘Freedom of the press’ or ‘Freedom of the media’ is the principle that communication and expression through various media, including printed and electronic media, especially published materials, should be considered a right to be exercised freely. Such freedom implies the absence of interference from an overreaching state; its preservation may be sought through constitutional or other legal protections.

“ Press freedom is the cornerstone of democratic societies. All States, all nations, are strengthened by information, debate and the exchange of opinions. At a time of growing discourse of mistrust and delegitimization of the press and journalism, it is essential that we guarantee freedom of opinion through the free exchange of ideas and information based on factual truths. ”

— Audrey Azoulay , Director-General of UNESCO , on the occasion of ‘World Press Freedom Day’ .

Meaning: Freedom of the press means to speak about all concerned. Even a general citizen can enjoy this freedom. He may express his opinions and constructive ideas through the newspaper. Freedom of the press does not mean freedom to the news media. It means freedom of all sorts of opinions and writings from all corners.

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. 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”. 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.

If the freedom of the press is undervalued books written on religion, politics, sex, etc. may likely be prescribed. Personal art, doctrines, isms are not subject to any moral or immoral barrier. If this happens to them, they will remain at the bottom of people’s oblivion.

Reasons for the freedom of press: Newspapers and journals make a very good contribution to the nation and the land so that they may function well either effectively or efficiently. Hence they deserve freedom in their realm of work within specific ethics. As related and identified with newspapers, the press wields immense power in a democratic country.

Every year, 3 rd May is a date which celebrates the fundamental principles of press freedom, to evaluate press freedom around the world, to defend the media from attacks on their independence and to pay tribute to journalists who have lost their lives in the exercise of their profession. World Press Freedom Day was proclaimed by the UN General Assembly in 1993 following a Recommendation adopted at the twenty-sixth session of UNESCO’s General Conference in 1991. This in turn was a response to a call by African journalists who in 1991 produced the landmark Windhoek Declaration on media pluralism and independence.

Real Freedom: Real freedom of the press can exist only where free people can function freely in a free democracy. It is saved right which should zealously be promoted. The Government owes it to itself to guarantee it from all arbitrary interferences. Editors owe it to the public to maintain an honest attitude in favor of the people against the party or class interest. In an enriched democratic govt. a newspaper is widely free like flying birds in the sky to express and spread public opinion.

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. Sweden was the first country in the world to adopt freedom of the press into its constitution with the Freedom of the Press Act of 1766.

The legislative body can ensure the freedom of the press by preventing any interference. Only the independent-minded editors should be allowed to publish newspapers freely considering the legal rights of the common people. No newspapers should be allowed to publish baseless news, false news, ill-propaganda, influencing news, scurrilous abuse, distorted news etc.

Conclusion: Freedom of the press should be a valued privilege. The govt. should zealously come forward to encourage the newspaper to publish news and views in a free and fair way against any party and class interests.

Information Source:

• ontaheen.com
• en.unesco.org

Tea – a Cash Crop of Bangladesh

A day in the life of a school bus driver, human rights violation, faqs about mobile number tracing, information and communications technology in marketing, machines are being taught to predict recovery time from sports-related concussions by scientists, soil health, nutritional status and food behavior of selected adolescent girls, management and technical procedure in apparel industry, latest post, mid-ocean ridge (mor), harnessing hydrogen at the genesis of life, ngc 5728’s faint characteristics are exposed, astronomers discover the oldest black hole ever observed, atomic hydrogen welding, variable-frequency transformer (vft).

Pivotal Moments: New York Times V. United States and Press Freedom

This essay about the New York Times v. United States explores the pivotal legal clash during the Vietnam War era. Focused on the release of the Pentagon Papers, it into the audacious actions of Daniel Ellsberg, revealing the U.S. government’s involvement in Vietnam. The Nixon administration’s vehement opposition led to a legal battle, centering on national security concerns and a sought-after prior restraint. The Supreme Court’s decisive 6-3 verdict in favor of press freedom, articulated by Justice Hugo Black, established a formidable precedent against prior restraints. Beyond its legal significance, the essay discusses the enduring impact of the case on the interplay between government and media, shaping subsequent interpretations of free speech and press freedoms. It underscores the case’s role in fortifying the press as a check on government excesses and the judiciary as a guardian of constitutional rights. Ultimately, the legal saga stands as a testament to the crucial role of a free press in a democratic society and the enduring influence of the First Amendment. At PapersOwl too, you can discover numerous free essay illustrations related to Freedom.

How it works

This exploration plunges into the pivotal legal clash encapsulated in New York Times v. United States, an epochal confrontation entwined with the complexities of the Vietnam War during the early 1970s. Amidst the fervor of the era, the New York Times initiated the release of excerpts from the Pentagon Papers—a controversial leak laying bare the U.S. government’s intricate involvement in Vietnam from 1945 to 1967. Daniel Ellsberg, the audacious military analyst orchestrating the leak, thrust the government into a quagmire of transparency and accountability.

As the Nixon administration vehemently opposed the disclosure, it sought legal avenues to suppress further revelations. The crux of the matter revolved around national security concerns, with the government advocating for a prior restraint—a legal injunction curtailing the press from disseminating classified information. The intricate legal drama climaxed in the Supreme Court, where the scales of justice delicately weighed the government’s claims of national security against the First Amendment rights of the press.

In a decisive 6-3 verdict, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the New York Times and the Washington Post, vehemently rejecting the government’s plea for a prior restraint. Justice Hugo Black, articulating the majority opinion, staunchly championed the freedom of the press. He contended that the government had failed to substantiate an imminent, irreparable threat to the nation that would justify stifling the press. The decision echoed a resolute commitment to upholding the sanctity of the First Amendment, firmly circumscribing the government’s authority to muzzle the press.

New York Times v. United States etched an indelible precedent, constructing a formidable bulwark against prior restraints on publication except in the most exigent circumstances. The ruling buttressed the press’s role as a sentinel, vigilantly scrutinizing government actions and nurturing an enlightened citizenry.

Beyond its legal significance, the case reverberated through the dynamic interplay between government and media, illuminating the perpetual conflict between government secrecy and the public’s entitlement to information that holds those in power accountable.

In the post-Pentagon Papers era, the case’s legacy endured, shaping subsequent legal interpretations of free speech and press freedoms. It fortified the notion that the press, even when disclosing classified information, functions as a pivotal check on government excesses. New York Times v. United States positioned the judiciary as a stalwart guardian of constitutional rights, ensuring that the principles enshrined in the First Amendment persist.

Ultimately, this legal saga stands as an enduring testament to the indispensable role of a free press in a democratic society. The case solidified the precedence of the First Amendment, establishing a benchmark that continues to influence the delicate equilibrium between national security exigencies and the public’s right to access vital information. Its reverberations in contemporary discussions underscore its stature as a seminal chapter in the ongoing narrative surrounding the limits of governmental authority and the ethical responsibilities of the Fourth Estate.

Cite this page

Pivotal Moments: New York Times v. United States and Press Freedom. (2024, Mar 01). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/pivotal-moments-new-york-times-v-united-states-and-press-freedom/

"Pivotal Moments: New York Times v. United States and Press Freedom." PapersOwl.com , 1 Mar 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/pivotal-moments-new-york-times-v-united-states-and-press-freedom/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Pivotal Moments: New York Times v. United States and Press Freedom . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/pivotal-moments-new-york-times-v-united-states-and-press-freedom/ [Accessed: 11 Apr. 2024]

"Pivotal Moments: New York Times v. United States and Press Freedom." PapersOwl.com, Mar 01, 2024. Accessed April 11, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/pivotal-moments-new-york-times-v-united-states-and-press-freedom/

"Pivotal Moments: New York Times v. United States and Press Freedom," PapersOwl.com , 01-Mar-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/pivotal-moments-new-york-times-v-united-states-and-press-freedom/. [Accessed: 11-Apr-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Pivotal Moments: New York Times v. United States and Press Freedom . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/pivotal-moments-new-york-times-v-united-states-and-press-freedom/ [Accessed: 11-Apr-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

The Freedom of Expression and the Freedom of Press Essay

The freedom of expression is an essential concept that guarantees the democratic rights and freedoms of the citizens. This freedom ensures an unlimited right to wholly express oneself in matters of public affairs as it is provided in the First Amendment. However, this freedom has never been absolute. The justices argue that this freedom of expression should be limited as a shield to possible dangers.

It should be noted that only two justices have upheld the literal interpretation of the First Amendment clause. In Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S 1 (1949), Justice William O’Douglas held his ground as an advocate of the First Amendment clause when he overturned the conviction of a religious leader who had been accused of making anti-semitic statements in a public rally. This decision did not auger well with some of the justices who held dissenting views by arguing that the court was going out of its way to reverse the conviction. Justice Felix Frankfurters, in his written dissent for instance, expressed his concern by arguing that the decision was likely to cause a power imbalance between the state and the federal court. Justice Hugo Black seemed to echo the sentiments of Justice William in his decision to allow the newspaper to continue with its publication in New York Times Co. V. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971) (Smith 20).

It is evident that the courts have evaluated the freedom of expression on a case-to-case basis. The proper limit of expression was evidenced in Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S 47 (1919) in which the court supported the conviction under the Espionage Act of 1917. The court further concluded that the defendant was not protected by the First Amendment. The decision of this court established the test of ‘clear and present danger’ that seems to gain popularity in subsequent court decisions such as Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927). However, the decisions in this cases were overhauled in Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), a landmark case in which the court ruled that the government had no right to punish abstract advocacy. The case saw the opinion by the per curiam majority overhaul the ‘Clear and present danger’ test to adopt the ‘imminent lawless action’ test (Farish 56).

It is evident that the evolution of standards that the court has adopted to evaluate the freedom of expression leaves a lot to be desired. The courts should establish precise standards to allow more freedom in the interpretation of First Amendment instead of relying on the liberal approach. Only then will the freedom of expression achieve its absolute nature.

The freedom of press is guaranteed under the First Amendment. The ability by the press to be accorded absolute freedom by the government is very crucial in a democratic and free society. The court has attempted to define the role of the press in the society. In Lovell v. City of Griffith, 303 U.S. 444 (1938), the press was defined as a ‘vehicle of information and opinion.’ Chief Justice Hughes continued to argue that the freedom of press is subject to certain restrictions and is therefore not absolute. Such restriction was upheld in Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972) in which the court held that the First Amendment did not grant a journalist the liberty to decline a subpoena from a jury (Cornwell 102).

There are certain instances that the court places restrictions on the press freedom. Such circumstances are denied the protection of the First Amendment. The most notable circumstance to which the court restricts the press is the use of obscene materials. This is in a bid to uphold the social morality in the society. The court in Ruth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957) ruled that any publication of obscene material was illegal and did not deserve any special treatment. The other circumstance relates to any publication of materials that seem to promote child pornography. The Fourth Amendment does not protect anyone who publishes such materials that seem to depict sexual connotation in a minor. The restriction on content is another instance that the court places a restriction on the press freedom. The court in Watts v. United States, 394 U.S 705 (1969) ruled that any content that contained a genuine threat can be prohibited. In applying this restriction, the court relies on the doctrine of ‘strict scrutiny’ which basically allows the court to restrict any content that it deems dangerous to the public interest. The doctrine of ‘strict scrutiny’ was further upheld in Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tomilio, 418 U.S. 241 (1974) in which the court refused to treat this restriction with any sympathy.

It is important to note that the state can place restriction through prior restraint. The court applies strict measures to evaluate laws that compel prior restraint on speech. One way is through evaluating the prohibited speech and to assess whether it creates imminent danger that could threaten the peace and the state’s legitimate interests. This is because the prohibited activity is suppressed before it is determined whether it is protected by the First Amendment. This was the argument in Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburg commission on Human Relations, 413 U.S 376 (1973). However, there are instances that the court has allowed the doctrine of prior restraint. The justices have written in dictum that the conventional doctrine is not applicable to commercial speech and the courts have been burdened with the task to establish whether it does (Lidsky and Wright 56). It has been established by the courts that the doctrine indeed applies to commercial speech. In addition, prior restraint is permissible in instances of preliminary injunctions and cases dealing with intellectual property.

Works Cited

Cornwell, Nancy. Freedom of the Press: rights and liberties under the law . New York: ABDO Publishing Company, 2004. Print.

Farish, Leah. The First Amendment: Freedom of speech, religion and the press . New Jersey: Enslow Publishers, 1998. Print.

Lidsky, Lyrissa and Wright, George. Freedom of the Press: a reference guide to the United States Constitution . California: Preager Publishers, 2004. Print.

Smith, Rich. First Amendment: The Right of Expression . New York: ABDO Publishing Company, 2007. Print.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, April 23). The Freedom of Expression and the Freedom of Press. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-freedom-of-expression-and-the-freedom-of-press/

"The Freedom of Expression and the Freedom of Press." IvyPanda , 23 Apr. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/the-freedom-of-expression-and-the-freedom-of-press/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'The Freedom of Expression and the Freedom of Press'. 23 April.

IvyPanda . 2022. "The Freedom of Expression and the Freedom of Press." April 23, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-freedom-of-expression-and-the-freedom-of-press/.

1. IvyPanda . "The Freedom of Expression and the Freedom of Press." April 23, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-freedom-of-expression-and-the-freedom-of-press/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "The Freedom of Expression and the Freedom of Press." April 23, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-freedom-of-expression-and-the-freedom-of-press/.

• Alleyne v. United States Criminal Proceedings
• Katz v. United States and Terry v. Ohio
• Tort Law: “Butler v. United States”
• Edmond v. United States, 520 U.S. 651
• Daniel and Lyrissa Touby v. United States
• The Korematsu v. United States Case and Its Implications
• Law, Business, and Society in "Carpenter v. United States"
• Civil Liberty: NY Times v. United States
• Katz v. United States: Case Analysis
• Fourth Amendment in Bailey v. United States
• Payton v. New York – 445 U.S. 573 Landmark Case
• National Security Within the Constitution
• Judicial Conduct and Disability Act Controversy
• Judicial Review Models, Types and Peculiarities
• Zoning Ordinance in Georgian Constitution, US

• Essay on Freedom of the Press in 600 Words for Students

Freedom of the Press or simply freedom of media is a principle that communication and expression of opinion through different forms of media, including print, radio, digital forms, should have the right to express opinions openly and freely. 

Freedom of Press is a much-debated topic. There is a fine line between “the state” influencing the media and the “media” having the freedom to express their views on matters of national or even international interest. 

Sweden was the first country in the world to adopt freedom of the Press into its constitution with the Freedom of the Press Act of 1766. Governments, especially in third world countries, are known to limit Freedom of Press for a multitude of reasons. 

In This Blog We Will Discuss

Why is Freedom of Press Important? 

The Press acts as a medium of communication between people and the government they have elected. Freedom of Press is important to highlight various issues in governance and disseminate necessary information about the government’s developmental work. 

Citizens receive information about new policy updates, developmental projects, updates to laws, and various amendments through Press. These publications make the working of the government smooth and enable citizens to understand whether these actions are beneficial to the larger public or some vested interests. 

Should Freedom of Press be Limited? 

As you might know, freedom of Press is established in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, stating that the “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the Press.”

The Supreme Court broadened the scope of the First Amendment to protect the freedoms of speech and press from censorship by any government entity to keep the Press independent and transparent. 

That being said, the Supreme Court also acknowledged and recognized some specific situations in which the government can limit the freedom of the Press. 

Different media publications have different political, religious or sometimes even ethnic inclinations, so news published on these different media can depict different versions of the same incident while being partially correct. 

Governments around the world have taken the necessary steps to limit freedom of Press for certain types of news, which are detailed below. 

What are Limitations to Freedom of Press? 

Different laws have different limitations when it comes to freedom of Press, and in the United States, any material that is considered offensive to the average citizen “contemporary community standards” and have no redeeming “literary, artistic, political, or scientific value” can be excluded from freedom of Press.  

Any material that is designed or can potentially incite immediate violence or unlawful activity will be excluded from the freedom of the Press.

Similarly, in the UK, there are different laws for limitations on freedom of Press. 

Contempt of Court – You cannot interfere with an accused’s right to get a fair trial. 

Libel – Publishers cannot print or distribute a story that they know isn’t true. 

Hate speech – Publishers and media organizations cannot have a newspaper inciting violence against minorities, or majorities.

Freedom of Press the Yearly Report by Freedom House

Freedom of the Press is a yearly report by US-based non-profit organization Freedom House. This report measures the levels of freedom and editorial independence that the press of different countries enjoy around the world. 

Freedom of Press in the Digital Age 

In this digital age, freedom of Press is often considered a gray area because almost anyone can create false or fake news to influence digital media. Even though large social media networks such as Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter have put fact-checking and moderation in place, it is not often very effective. 

Digitally, freedom of Press is often misused as small independent creators or publishers publish news and misleading articles to get shares and drive more traffic to websites for advertising revenue. 

As readers or digital media consumers, we have to ensure we consume news and media information from  trusted sources  and not share with other unverified news. 

More Essays:

• Essay on Internet Advantages and Disadvantages for Class 1-12
• Essay on Winter Season in 200, 300, 400, 500, 600 Words for Class 1-12
• Essay on Internet in 300, 400, 500, 600 Words for Class 1-12
• Essay on Good Manners in 300, 400, 500, 600 Words for Class 1-10
• Essay on Early Rising in 300, 400, 500, 600 Words for Class 1-10
• Essay on Advantages and Disadvantages of Mobile Phone for Class 1-12
• Essay on My Favourite Teacher in 400, 500, 600, 700 Words for Class 1-12
• Value of Education Essay in 300, 400, 500, 600, 700 Words for Class 1-12
• Essay on Childhood Memories in 200, 300, 400, 500, 600 Words
• Essay on My Favourite Book in 200, 300, 400, 500, 600 Words
• Essay on Village Life in 300, 400, 500, 600 Words for Class 1-10

Related posts:

• Essay on How I Spent My Holidays at Home
• Essay on Travelling in English for All Class
• Essay on Myself: For All Classes Students and Children
• Essay on Railway Station | Short and Long Essays for Students
• Essay on My Dream in 200, 300, 400, 500, 600 Words for Students

What journalists have to say about press freedom in East Africa

By karen mcintyre and meghan sobel cohen apr 10, 2024 in press freedom.

A majority of the world’s population has experienced a decline in press freedom in recent years, according to a U.N. report . In east Africa, the results are mixed and debatable.

In Rwanda , both international press freedom rankings and journalists on the ground say press freedom has increased over the past 10 years. In neighboring Uganda , both international rankings and local journalists say media freedom has declined. In Kenya , rankings reflect declining freedom over the past decade, but reporters acknowledge they have more freedom than their counterparts in Uganda and Rwanda.

In our roles as associate professors in journalism and mass communication, we interviewed and surveyed more than 500 journalists in Rwanda, Uganda and Kenya. We learned that the evolution and current state of press freedom in the region is complex. In our book, Press Freedom and the (Crooked) Path Toward Democracy: Lessons from Journalists in East Africa , we provide an updated state of press freedom in these three countries.

We argue that much of the academic research that classifies global media systems has overlooked the world’s most developing nations, and those that have included developing nations have failed to consider their historical contexts. They have worked from a misguided premise that nations develop in a linear fashion – from non-democracy to democracy – and from a restricted press to a free press. In reality, press freedom and democracy ebb and flow.

We examine the impact of social, political, legal and economic factors on media in Rwanda, Uganda and Kenya to help with understanding media systems outside the western world.

We chose to study these three countries because they represent varying stages of development and democracy building. Rwanda, which experienced a genocide in 1994, is in relatively early (though fast paced) stages of reconstruction. Uganda, which experienced a civil war in the 1980s and unrest in the 1990s but arguably not to the extent of Rwanda’s genocide, can be considered in a middle stage of development. Kenya, which has remained largely peaceful, can be understood as being in a more advanced stage of development.

In Rwanda, despite 30 years of economic, social and media progress and development, lingering impacts from the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi permeate the country’s media. Multiple laws limit free expression in the name of genocide prevention, and international press freedom rankings indicate the nation is not free .

Yet, we found that many Rwandan journalists believe that they have a great deal of freedom and that outsiders don’t consider the country’s history when evaluating the media. Outsiders, for example, hear that Rwandan journalists cannot criticize the president or high-ranking government officials and immediately think there is no press freedom. But local journalists say they don’t feel oppressed. They feel relatively free to choose their story topics. They don’t want to publish critical stories because they want to foster peace.

Journalists believe their role is to act as unifiers and right the wrongs of their predecessors who exacerbated the genocide. Public trust in the media remains high , according to focus groups conducted with members of the general public. In Rwanda, there appears to be a relationship between press freedom and distance from conflict. That is, the more time that passes since the country experienced war, the more press freedom it has.

Prioritizing social good over media rights has helped the country unify and develop, but over the long term we see signs that Rwanda’s linear path towards increasing democracy and press freedom may not continue. Rather, prioritizing peace at the cost of press freedom could limit development and reinforce existing authoritarian power structures .

In Uganda, the relationship between press freedom and distance from conflict has been less linear. Some media restrictions have lessened and others have worsened.

Despite a sustained period of peace after conflict with the Lord’s Resistance Army in the northern part of the country that began in the 1980s, press freedom is not increasing as time passes. Overall, journalists in the country largely agree with the international perception that they’re restricted and that the situation is worsening the longer President Yoweri Museveni remains in power. Journalists in Uganda perceive their press freedom to be lower than journalists in neighboring countries. They also have a more pessimistic outlook.

Government interference, some of which stems from the conflict and some that’s new , remains pervasive. Worn down by government intimidation and repressive laws, coupled with low pay and lack of necessary equipment, some journalists told us they had turned to unethical behavior, such as acting as spies in the newsroom.

Kenya is home to the freest media environment . It’s also the only one in our study that has seen changes in presidential leadership in recent years. But just because a nation regularly holds elections doesn’t mean the path to democratization and media freedom is smooth.

External measures indicate that Kenya has more press freedom than Uganda and Rwanda, and journalists in the country perceive this to be true. However, data show ups and downs of media freedom that have mirrored varying political administrations and events, including spurts of post-election violence . These ebbs and flows are largely due to politicians or powerful members of society who share ideological goals or have financial interests like owning major media houses and influencing coverage.

Despite the challenges, journalists attribute Kenya’s state of press freedom to the vast international connections the country and its leaders have. An empowered civil society – which stems from both a space for dissent given by public officials, and the culture and spirit of Kenyans – has promoted the growth of human rights, including media freedoms.

Why it matters

After a nuanced examination of the factors that affect the media in each of these countries, our book lists a set of factors that affect press freedom and democracy building.

Specifically, we believe each country’s distance from conflict, political benchmarks, international linkages and civil society strength are central to understanding its degree of press freedom, development and democratization.

While these factors are not the only elements that influence media landscapes, they are a starting point for better understanding and theorizing about press freedom environments.

Karen McIntyre  is an assistant professor of Journalism and Director of Graduate Studies at the Richard T. Robertson School of Media and Culture at  Virginia Commonwealth University .  Meghan Sobel Cohen  is an associate professor at the Department of Communication and the Master of Development Practice at  Regis University .

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article .

Photo by James Wiseman on Unsplash .

IJNet provides the latest tips, trends and training opportunities in eight languages . Sign up here for our weekly newsletter: