The Importance Of Freedom Of Speech Within Journalism

The freedom of press sounds like one of the things we shouldn’t be focused on, especially with everything else that is going on in our world. Why exactly is this an important freedom? I have always found it to be a little bit strange that we are protecting the right to say hateful things about people you barely know. It doesn’t sound like it should be as important as things like torture or murder. Sometimes words can hurt, but they can also be used to do great things.

Canada has always had strict rules when regarding freedom of speech. Some believe that for democracy to function properly, freedom of speech is necessary. Although absolute freedom of speech allows for all voices to be heard. The voices of many can be heard, but there are many more that are left to not be heard. Wealth and power play a huge role in determining who gets heard. Although media outlets are supposed to be reliable sources of information, the media has become less and less reputable because of the now large number of sources derived from radio, television and the internet. These sources are hard to monitor and can generate false information and biased opinions. The line between verified and non-verified sources have become greyer

Newspaper reporting is all about finding stories that will appeal to readers. Journalists try to uncover the real situations and problems that affect those readers and write the truth. What if writers were forbidden to write these articles? It may sound like something that could never happen in America, where citizens’ freedom of speech is protected, but the reality is that it is happening. In schools around the country, student newspapers are being censored and their stories yanked out or manipulated to reflect biased opinions. Uncensored journalism in school is necessary because it teaches the First Amendment, it allows kids to fight the wrongs in their world, and it keeps school faculty from having to fight for students’ articles.

The government can not censor the press, even if what is published is against the government. The free press helps to protect citizens’ rights and hold the government in check. Also in accordance to the First Amendment, people have the right to join any organization of their choosing and come together as a group, peaceably. The last right that the public has is the right to present the government with petitions or letters that tell of their unhappiness and complaints against the government. This is a right that our founding fathers did not have back in England. When they declared independence from the King, they laid out all of their grievances for the world to see. In contrast, our citizens today do no have to wait for a historical event to vent their frustrations.

News stories may be censored to protect a person and their identity. It may also be used to cover up vital national security information or graphic details. Does this prohibit the reader from knowing the full story? Perhaps, but of times, this may be for our own benefit.There is a fine line between going into gory, unsettling detail and making it seem like your everyday actuality. For example, when exposing violent brutal assault and graphic imagery. Journalists sometimes even have to self-censor their own work to keep safe, even western journalists cannot always tell the complete story when working in difficult situations. It puts them in grave danger if they do: Such as in the case of the journalists slaughtered by ISIS for uncovering secrets and political agenda behind the terrorist organisation. Censoring journalism prohibits possible important information from reaching the masses but also it is something which we may have to live with to some

Under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, everyone is guaranteed certain rights. One that stands out and is essential to our society is the fundamental freedom of expression. Anyone can speak their opinion in public. However, the government can in some instances limit these freedoms. The question that causes a lot of debate is in what instances can the government genuinely limit people’s rights while being justified in doing so. I believe the restrictions on speech in Canada are appropriate. I believe that the government was correct in not intervening with the debate between Mark Steyn and the Muslim petitioners because his article did not warrant enough to risk the safety of Muslims, and by coercing Maclean’s to post an opposing viewpoint would be a violation of their fundamental freedom of expression.

These are some examples of why it’s a positive thing that the Constitution has the First Amendment. The First Amendment states that Congress shall not prohibit ”or abridge the freedom...of the press...” (“The 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution”). This is important because otherwise, American journalists can end up with the same fate as those living in a country where media censorship is prevalent. However, we maybe be approaching that point. The Committee to Protect Journalists is concerned about “the sharp deterioration of press freedom in the U.S.” which has been linked to Donald Trump’s campaign (Bromwich). One event in particular stands out as an example of this. On Inauguration Day 2017, six journalists were indiscriminately arrested with several protesters. The Metropolitan PD charged the journalists, who were there only to report the scene at the inauguration, with felony rioting, lumping them in with the actual protesters. “[These] actions were seen to contribute to a threatening climate for journalists covering the election,”

The freedom of press is the critical because this freedom help people know about the actuality. The journalist are the fundamental way to report the information to the

I thought it was a good idea to also discuss the relation between politics and the media. I found this topic to be especially relevant due to the last election our country had. The struggle between the media and authority figures has been a problem that has been prevalent for a long time. The role of media in Canada’s democratic armour was strengthened in 1982 due to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This provided constitutional guarantees for freedom of expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication.

Have you picked up a newspaper or magazine in the last few weeks? Then you have been enjoying one of the first amendment rights. Journalism in the United States has changed over time. These changes have affected society.

Freedom of expression has become one of the most valued features of a free and democratic society. Freedom of speech and expression are a set of valued rights that allow citizens to openly debate, political issues, political leaders, and government policies. Free flow of information is evidence of a healthy democracy. Therefore, freedom is a fundamental right of individual autonomy. However, it is very important to show contrast that there is a vast difference between the allowance of freedom of expression in in Canada, compared to free speech in the United States, where all forms freedom of speech is protected under the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. (Tarnopolsky 1983) However, under the 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms under Section 2b, it states that “Everyone has the right to the following fundamental freedoms… thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media communication.” (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 2b) While section 2b is guaranteed to protect freedom of expression, it is subject to Section 1, which states that all Charter rights can be struck down within reasonable limits. The Oakes Test has been an important tool that has been used to determine whether the proportionality and rational of invoking Section 1 was done under a justifiable and positive measures that outweigh the negatives. In this essay I examine R v. Keegstra, R v. Zundel, R v. Whatcott, R v. Sharpe and R v. Butler. It

Although Canadians are guaranteed freedom of expression under s. 2 (b) of the Charter, these rights are not guaranteed according to s. 1 of the Charter. S.1 of the Charter states that a violation of its rights set out, is acceptable only if it demonstrably justified. If a law is reasonably justified, then the violation of the Charter right is acceptable. There are two steps to determine if the law is justifiable: 1. The objective of the law must be pressing and substantial and 2. The law has to be proportional.

Newspapers are rooted together with the public sphere, globalization, and mass media. The newspaper and the public sphere give citizens an opportunity to examine public concern and global matters. Does this mean that those involved with the Canadian ownership and newspaper industry ultimately wield the power in Canadian society, by exercising this influence to mold the Canadian opinion of readers (Wagenberg & Soderlund, 1975)? Historically, multiple independent newspapers existed, but this had significantly lessened over time with the rise of concentrated ownership in the newspaper industry. Canada has the most concentrated ownership of any country in the free world, meaning that the ownership of newspapers are left into fewer and fewer hands. For example, there are 42 daily newspapers across Canada owned by PostMedia. This raises concerns about concentrated ownership, and if this impacts a Canadian society in having a free diverse range of voices in our national and local media in order to sustain a healthy democracy. The current issue is whether or not concentrated ownership is causing distrust in mainstream Canadian newspapers, creating a climate of insecurity, and if there is an effect on the quality of journalism.

The United States constitution gives Americans many rights. One of those rights is the freedom of speech. The Supreme Court has started hearing arguments in a case that could rewrite the rules for television stations now prohibited from pushing nudity or profanity on public airwaves. In the United States, while most American families view television shows with nudity, violence, and profanity as a threat to the traditional family structure. Some see it as their right to have those programs available to them on television. In The New York Times article “More Than Ever, You Can Say That On Television” by Edward Wyatt, the author addresses that the issue is not that the language and content on television is more inappropriate that previous years, but that it is show during all hours. I believe that these programs do not reinforce family values; they have a negative influence on children, and should be show after 10:00 PM.

First of all, this is the definition of freedom of the press from lawbrain.com. Freedom of the press guarantees the rights, “to gather, publish, and distribute information and ideas without government restriction or restraint”. Also it is