Essay about Freedom of the Press

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear” (George Orwell). Whether the opinion is of extreme offense or not, censorship is not the answer nor is the limitation of the freedom of speech. Emerging the truth, can only be possible through the opposition of ideas, thus with no boundries, the full protection of freedom of speech is a necessary quality of any society.

According to “Freedom of Speech” by Gerald Leinwand, Abraham Lincoln once asked, “Must a government, of necessity, be too strong for the liberties of its people, or too weak to maintain its own existence (7)?” This question is particularly appropriate when considering what is perhaps the most sacred of all our Constitutionally guaranteed rights, freedom of expression. Lincoln knew well the potential dangers of expression, having steered the Union through the bitterly divisive Civil War, but he held the Constitution dear enough to protect its promises whenever possible (8).

This went directly against the Declaration of Rights law that stated “The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law”  He also helped relations achieve positions of power in Europe, ignoring the principles of the meritocracy which he had earlier instilled.

     Since this country was founded, we have had a set of unalienable rights that our constitution guarantees us to as Americans. One of the most important rights that is mentioned in our constitution is the right to free speech. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the

We read novels, textbooks, road signs, and billboards every single day, but there is so much more to this freedom. It allows us to read and write novels that help us connect with our inner selves. It allows us to look at controversial topics through multiple views and choose which side to believe, rather than being told what to believe. The rights that this freedom gives us also come with responsibility. We must be willing to keep ourselves educated, otherwise, this freedom is wasted. The freedom of press is a one that all Americans should be grateful for.

This is evidenced by the creation of the final act in the Alien and Sedition Acts, which states that the publication of anything that makes the American government look bad is punishable by fine or prison time. This once again shows American Exceptionalism in that the US government wanted everyone to believe that they were the perfect form of government. This act angered many people because they viewed this as unconstitutional because it violated the rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Edward Livingston, a congressman from New York said, “...by this act… the president alone is empowered to make the law, to fix in his mind what acts, what words, what thoughts or looks, shall constitute the crime contemplated by the bill…” (Document Q). These people thought it best that the federal government’s powers were more limited because they feared that the federal government would become too powerful and tyrannical, or even worse, revert back to a monarchy. They were further angered by the fact that they were not allowed to print anything that stated their opinion, but those with the opposite opinion could. One example of this is the propaganda that is seen in Document M. This is a political cartoon that shows the occurrences of the XYZ affair. The cartoon is used to portray France as corrupt and show that America is better than all other countries, and is an example of the US federal government having too much power because they are, in a way, able to influence the minds of the people by controlling what they read. Other people however, argued that the Sedition Act is not unconstitutional at all and is merely a reiteration of what has already been stated. John Allen, Federalist congressman from Connecticut wrote, “The freedom of the press and opinions was never understood to give the right of publishing falsehoods and slanders, nor of

Even in the early stages of American history there was an urge to put legally protected freedoms into written government documents. The result was the drafting of the first ten amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, by James Madison. The applications of the personal freedoms described in the Bill of Rights, particularly the freedom of speech, have been challenged repeatedly in American courts of law and elsewhere. These incidents and challenges of authority reflect the defensive American attitude toward the ever-important freedom of expression and the growing significance of personal rights throughout American history.

Peter Zenger owned the New York Weekly Journal and once wrote something against the royal governor and was writing for a political party. He was put on trial for libel, but Hamilton was the one who got the jury to say “not guilty” because he stated that New York’s libel laws are not the same as England’s libel laws. This was the foundation of the freedom of speech.

Ever since the 17th century, the newspaper has been produced and blown out of proportion, known as mass media. George A. Krimsky shines his own opinion in his essay, “The Role of the Media in a Democracy.” Krimsky provides many examples, reasoning, and rhetoric devices to expand his argument even more, his argument being that; the press should send out straight facts, let people interpret them, and allow the free press to hold the government accountable.

In the book Freedom for the Thought that we Hate, author Anthony Lewis takes a simply phrased law, the First Amendment and shows how complex freedom of speech really is once put into the real world of freedom, as we know it. He shows through his rejections of absolutism, strong support towards freedom restriction, and objective analysis of Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, that the United States press is unlike any other in the world.

This paper addresses whether we should censor or block access to websites with controversial material. It looks at the issue from several sides: The relevant US laws that are in place, how censorship is used at the university and corporate levels, how other countries are attempting censorship, and finally what I feel about the topic.

Censorship may be protection from inappropriate materials, but it also limits free speech. For the limitation of free speech, it is reasonable why people are emphatically against censorship. It is understood that there is a need to filter some of the materials released in today’s society, but too much is being done by people who have no right meddling with everyone’s rights. Civilization has always been plagued by a never ending battle being fought over what is deemed right and wrong. In today’s culture, censorship oppresses everything in the media. From movies and music to television and even news stories, most of the content viewed today has been filtered one way or another. Restrictions have been in place since early societies have been

In Brink’s discussion of, Millian Principles, Freedom of Expression, and Hate Speech, he distinguishes between low value and high value speech. The former is speech that plays no essential role in the exposition of ideas and is of such slight social value as a step to the truth that any benefit is outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. Examples of low value speech include threats, fighting words, incitement of illegal activity, libel, and obscenity. In contrast, high value speech is speech that contributes to public discourse. Moreover, it possesses content-based restrictions that are subject to strict scrutiny, laws that are necessary to meet a state interest.

In On Liberty (1859), John Stuart Mill was a strong believer of freedom of speech. He identifies the Harm principle to protect the freedom of thought and expression. He argues that people should not be silenced for expressing their opinion or how they feel based on their beliefs. He declares four vaguely arguments and makes several examples as to why freedom of speech is a very important aspect to society. In this paper, I argue that Mill is correct in declaring that we have the right to express our opinions as long as it does not bring harm to others. First, I will define how Mill uses the harm principle to declare his argument and the four distinct reasons for freedom of opinion and the expression of opinion. Secondly, I will declare my viewpoint based on why I agree with the harm principle as well as Mill’s argument following that we have a right to freedom of expression.

Freedom of the press is part of the five main freedoms represented in the first amendment of the constitution of the United States. The constitution was ratified in 1791 putting freedom of the press in full development. Since then many cases have evolved with this freedom, and the freedom had some role of developing future amendments and technology in modern day. Freedom of the press had a history even before its ratification, it helped to solve many court cases, and is used throughout modern times.