essay about freedom of the press

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

Freedom of the Press Essay

Introduction.

In any society, the media is relied upon to provide information on the events that happen both locally and internationally. The media is trusted to provide unbiased information, but this is not always the case. In the essay, we will try and find out if the media is an enemy of law enforcement.

The first amendment to the US constitution states that:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances (Norton, 1996).

The press clause in this amendment has seen the media exercise too much freedom in their dissemination of information. The media is characterized by the reporting of news that interest the public so as to boost their ratings.

They therefore, use any means that they think are entertaining and appealing to their audience. In the area of crime, the media puts crime news in contexts that can be understood by the masses. The media ensures that there is policy accountability in their course of duty. The media ensures this by exposing inefficiency and corruption cases (Norton, 1996).

However, the media has not been all that partial in the dissemination of information and this has, on many occasions, been a problem to law enforcers. Because the media knows that their rights are protected by the constitution, they have gone to the extent of dwelling more on major misconduct from law enforcers.

The media ignores or does not cover everyday activities of the police because such events are not pleasing to the audience and will therefore, not raise their ratings. Police work is often distorted by the media which tends to only concentrate on crime and ignores other police activities not related to crime. They therefore, only highlight the negative side of law enforcement (Freedom, 2008).

This problem is also experienced in court cases whereby the media is often accused of press releases of information that should not be released before court cases are discharged. This has, on some occasions affected court decisions because jurors will have already formed prejudices about the case.

Too much publicity also risks having an impartial jury, the constitutions protects the media, meaning that courts have to employ other measures such as changing the venue. When writing the constitution, the writers knew that it was necessary to protect citizens from the government. They knew that it was important to let people air out their sentiments, but one should take caution about what he gives to the public (Freedom, 2008).

All has not been that bad with the media. For instance, the media helped in the capture of the Oklahoma City bomber when they aired it on the radio and ran sketches of the suspects on television. The Washington post also helped in the capture of the Unabomber when it published his manifesto.

On reading the manifesto, the brother quickly recognized it and alerted the police who apprehended him. However, in the “Alfred P. Murrah Federal office building” bombing case, the two accused men filed a request to dismiss the prosecution because they said that the trial had been prejudiced by the publicity made by the media. Their plea was accepted, but court proceedings were transferred to another court (Summary, n.d).

These cases show that media plays a very important role in the world and whether it is negative or positive, the forefathers were not mistaken, and the media should be free to provide checks and balances where necessary.

Freedom. (2008). Freedom of the Press. America Government. Web.

Norton, J. (1996). United States Constitution Amendments Article I of the Bill of Rights. Bare Foot Sword. Web.

Summary. (n.d). Summary and Conclusion. Web.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, December 18). Freedom of the Press. https://ivypanda.com/essays/freedom-of-the-press/

"Freedom of the Press." IvyPanda , 18 Dec. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/freedom-of-the-press/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'Freedom of the Press'. 18 December.

IvyPanda . 2023. "Freedom of the Press." December 18, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/freedom-of-the-press/.

1. IvyPanda . "Freedom of the Press." December 18, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/freedom-of-the-press/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Freedom of the Press." December 18, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/freedom-of-the-press/.

• Karl Marx and the "Communist Manifesto"
• Education in Marxism: The Communist Manifesto
• The Manifesto of the City of the 21st Century
• Culture: A Remix Manifesto and Adornian Concepts
• Arts in Society: Artistic Manifesto
• Advertising, Publicity, and Public Relations
• ”Refugees From Amerika: A Gay Manifesto” Context Review
• "Get to Work: A Manifesto for Women of the World" by Linda Hirshman
• Communist Manifesto, Time and Social Issues
• Mass Media & Law Enforcers in Community Policing
• The Impact of Communication Media on Economic Development
• Functions and Power of Mass Media: Views of Two German Authors
• On the Cultural Crossroads: New Media vs. Old Media
• Globalization Effects on the System of Governance in the World
• "The West Memphis 3" Documentary

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

First Amendment :

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Some have raised the question of whether the free speech clause and the free press clause are coextensive, or whether one reaches where the other does not. It has been much debated, for example, whether the “institutional press” is entitled to greater freedom from governmental regulations or restrictions than are non-press individuals, groups, or associations. Justice Stewart has argued: “That the First Amendment speaks separately of freedom of speech and freedom of the press is no constitutional accident, but an acknowledgment of the critical role played by the press in American society. The Constitution requires sensitivity to that role, and to the special needs of the press in performing it effectively.” 1 Footnote ,Houchins v. KQED 438 U.S. 1, 17 (1978) (concurring opinion). Justice Stewart initiated the debate in a speech, subsequently reprinted as Stewart , Or of the Press , 26 Hastings L. J. 631 (1975) . Other articles are cited in First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 798 (1978) (Chief Justice Burger concurring). But, as Chief Justice Burger wrote: “The Court has not yet squarely resolved whether the Press Clause confers upon the ‘institutional press’ any freedom from government restraint not enjoyed by all others.” 2 Footnote 435 U.S. at 798 . The Chief Justice’s conclusion was that the institutional press had no special privilege as the press.

Several Court holdings do firmly point to the conclusion that the press clause does not confer on the press the power to compel government to furnish information or otherwise give the press access to information that the public generally does not have. 3 Footnote Houchins v. KQED, 438 U.S. 1 (1978) , and id. at 16 (Justice Stewart concurring); Saxbe v. Washington Post, 417 U.S. 843 (1974) ; Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817 (1974) ; Nixon v. Warner Communications, 435 U.S. 589 (1978) . The trial access cases, whatever they may precisely turn out to mean, recognize a right of access of both public and press to trials. Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980) ; Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596 (1982) . Nor, in many respects, is the press entitled to treatment different in kind from the treatment to which any other member of the public may be subjected. 4 Footnote Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972) (grand jury testimony be newspaper reporter); Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U.S. 547 (1978) (search of newspaper offices); Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153 (1979) (defamation by press); Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., 501 U.S. 663 (1991) (newspaper’s breach of promise of confidentiality). “Generally applicable laws do not offend the First Amendment simply because their enforcement against the press has incidental effects.” 5 Footnote Cohen v. Cowles Media, 501 U.S. 663, 669 (1991) . Yet, it does seem clear that, to some extent, the press, because of its role in disseminating news and information, is entitled to deference that others are not entitled to—that its role constitutionally entitles it to governmental “sensitivity,” to use Justice Stewart’s word. 6 Footnote E.g. , Miami Herald Pub. Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974) ; Landmark Communications v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829 (1978) . See also Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U.S. 547, 563–67 (1978) , and id. at 568 (Justice Powell concurring); Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 709 (1972) (Justice Powell concurring). Several concurring opinions in Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980) , imply recognition of some right of the press to gather information that apparently may not be wholly inhibited by nondiscriminatory constraints. Id. at 582–84 (Justice Stevens), 586 n.2 (Justice Brennan), 599 n.2 (Justice Stewart). Yet the Court has also suggested that the press is protected in order to promote and to protect the exercise of free speech in society at large, including peoples’ interest in receiving information. E.g. , Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 218–19 (1966) ; CBS v. FCC, 453 U.S. 367, 394–95 (1981) . What difference such “sensitivity” might make in deciding cases is difficult to say.

The most interesting possibility lies in the First Amendment protection of good-faith defamation. 7 Footnote New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) . See discussion of “Defamation,” infra . Justice Stewart argued that the Sullivan privilege is exclusively a free press right, denying that the “constitutional theory of free speech gives an individual any immunity from liability for libel or slander.” 8 Footnote Stewart , Or of the Press , 26 Hastings L. J. 631, 633–35 (1975) . To be sure, in all the cases to date that the Supreme Court has resolved, the defendant has been, in some manner, of the press, 9 Footnote In Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111, 133 n.16 (1979) , the Court noted that it has never decided whether the Times standard applies to an individual defendant. Some think they discern in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974) , intimations of such leanings by the Court. but the Court’s decision in First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti that corporations are entitled to assert First Amendment speech guarantees against federal and, through the Fourteenth Amendment , state, regulations causes the evaporation of the supposed “conflict” between speech clause protection of individuals only and press clause protection of press corporations as well as of press individuals. 10 Footnote 435 U.S. 765 (1978) . The decision, addressing a question not previously confronted, was 5-to-4. Justice Rehnquist would have recognized no protected First Amendment rights of corporations because, as entities entirely the creation of state law, they were not to be accorded rights enjoyed by natural persons. Id. at 822 . Justices White, Brennan, and Marshall thought the First Amendment implicated but not dispositive because of the state interests asserted. Id. at 802 . Previous decisions recognizing corporate free speech had involved either press corporations, id. at 781–83 ; see also id. at 795 (Chief Justice Burger concurring), or corporations organized especially to promote the ideological and associational interests of their members. E.g. , NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415 (1963) . The issue, the Court wrote in Bellotti , was not what constitutional rights corporations have but whether the speech that is being restricted is protected by the First Amendment because of its societal significance. Because the speech in Bellotti concerned the enunciation of views on the conduct of governmental affairs, it was protected regardless of its source; while the First Amendment protects and fosters individual self-expression as a worthy goal, it also and as importantly affords the public access to discussion, debate, and the dissemination of information and ideas. Despite Bellotti 's emphasis upon the political nature of the contested speech, it is clear that the same principle—the right of the public to receive information—governs nonpolitical, corporate speech. 11 Footnote Commercial speech when engaged in by a corporation is subject to the same standards of protection as when natural persons engage in it. Consolidated Edison Co. v. PSC, 447 U.S. 530, 533–35 (1980) . Nor does the status of a corporation as a government-regulated monopoly alter the treatment. Id. at 534 n.1 ; Central Hudson Gas & Electric Co. v. PSC, 447 U.S. 557, 566–68 (1980) .

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.

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?

• Election Integrity
• Immigration

Political Thought

American History

• Conservatism
• Progressivism

International

• Global Politics
• Middle East

Government Spending

• Budget and Spending

Energy & Environment

• Environment

Legal and Judicial

• Crime and Justice
• Second Amendment
• The Constitution

National Security

• Cybersecurity

Domestic Policy

• Government Regulation
• Health Care Reform
• Marriage and Family
• Religious Liberty
• International Economies
• Markets and Finance

Franklin and the Free Press

Arthur Milikh

Former Associate Director, B. Kenneth Simon Center

Many Americans today have an ambivalent stance toward the free press. On the one hand, nearly all citizens assent to the idealism that originally justified its creation: We value the discovery and circulation of the truth, and the prevention of governmental tyranny. As such, the press is meant to serve both intellectual and political liberty. Yet, on the other hand, few citizens directly experience this idealism, feeling instead the press's forcefulness, flattery, vehemence, and sometimes fanaticism — often akin to warfare directed at their minds and sentiments. Rather than heading off intellectual and political dogma, the press often creates or disseminates it. A great disparity thus exists between the press's ideals and its practice today.

As originally understood by many of America's founders, the open circulation of the truth through the press would serve both society and the individual. As Thomas Jefferson explains,

No experiment can be more interesting than that we are now trying, and which we trust will end in establishing the fact, that man may be governed by reason and truth. Our first object should therefore be, to leave open to him all the avenues to truth. The most effectual hitherto found, is the freedom of the press.

In addition, many of America's founders also understood the press as an essential bulwark against government for the securing of individual rights. Jefferson, again, summarizes:

I am...for freedom of the press, and against all violations of the constitution to silence by force and not by reason the complaints or criticisms, just or unjust, of our citizens against the conduct of their agents.

The press, and especially the mass press, is a means by which to enforce accountability and responsibility in the government, and to thereby compel government's virtue. Moreover, newspapers even help "maintain civilization," as Alexis de Tocqueville observes in  Democracy in America . By giving democratic citizens common opinions, common sympathies, and a resource for common action, newspapers can help prevent the individuation and isolation of citizens to which democracy disposes them.

These idealistic aims markedly diverge from the mass press's actual behavior and its effects on republicanism. And that is not a new problem. During America's founding, as historian Leonard Levy observes, an "extraordinary partisanship, vitality, and invective had become ordinary" in the press. Indeed, today's press has similar inclinations, often imposing onto the public its taste for derision and ridicule, which it substitutes for depth and thoughtfulness. Examples abound, but consider the  Huffington Post 's editor's note, added to nearly every article referencing Donald Trump during the 2016 election:

Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S.

Not stopping at public figures, the press also satisfies its penchant for crushing the will of private citizens and groups through shame and fear, making them feel their smallness and brittleness. Its behavior, in sum, often discloses the press's tacit opinion concerning America's moral hierarchy: that the press is not merely a fourth estate, but the judge of would-be rulers, and therefore the master, or at least the kingmaker. Yet it remains unclear whether the press rules with the spirit of humanity and prudence, or whether it is animated by the desire to dominate the public mind. It frequently vacillates between these extremes.

By contrast to the early Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin had no illusions about the character of the press in America. Few serious thinkers have reflected with as much clarity on the nature of the press as Franklin. And no other thinker has had so much experience and commercial success in it. A lifelong defender of the freedom of the press, Franklin was nevertheless not uncritical of its effects.

Franklin's short but rich essay, "An Account of the Supremest Court of Judicature in Pennsylvania, viz., The Court of the Press," written a year before his death in 1790, lays out a comprehensive analysis of the press: its effects on politics and the democratic mind, its mode of rule, and the origins of its power. His study is, in a sense, an examination of the effectual truth of the principle underlying freedom of the press. His reflections are urgently needed today.

The press, Franklin argues, unlike any other republican institution, has a power that does not fall under any constitutional check. It is motivated to act viciously by its very principle (created to attack dogma, false knowledge, and political corruption), though in practice it is neither limited nor moderated by either its own idealism or by any institution. While the press claims to rule like a court — passing all things before its judgment — it may rule tyrannically because it is liberated from considerations of justice or precedent. Thus unchecked, the press can subvert rational habits of mind among citizens and reverence for the law while flattering public resentments and antagonizing citizens' pride. Franklin was consciously witnessing the birth of a new class, a kind of press corps, created by this new principle, and his assessment of the human content of this class is contrasted with the powers it wields. For Franklin, a free press must be checked by a vigilant and jealous public, which he hopes to energize against abuses of liberty.

Franklin's literary style differs from that of the other founders. As University of Chicago professor Ralph Lerner has observed, Franklin often "works on us through indirection and insinuation. But he leaves it to  us  to catch his drift." In his analysis of the press, Franklin tacitly points out both the problems with our idealism (so as to soften their deleterious effects) and the conflicts in our motives and hopes (so as to encourage a liberating skepticism). He does so with a view to protecting democratic self-respect while exposing and ridiculing the ability of the press to undermine the host democracy's institutions.

POWER AND SUBVERSION

In order to get at Franklin's perspective on the press in America, we need to take a step back to get a sense of its powers. According to Franklin, the press's powers resemble those of a "court," a term he uses in several ways. In the first sense, the press resembles a conventional court of law: It has the power to "judge, sentence, and condemn to infamy" citizens both public and private. The press even carries out court-like powers by conducting what look like hearings and inquiries. And since in a republic none can claim superiority to the law, "all persons" and "all inferior courts" are subject to its jurisdiction and judgment. In this way, the press claims to imitate the majesty, objectivity, and moral authority of a court of law.

The press does these things, however, without being "governed by any of the rules of common courts of law." Unlike a legal court, the press is not part of the judicial system and is therefore not subject to the institutional checks that moderate political power and authority. While the claims to equity and justice authorize such powers in a court of law, the press is neither restrained by legal precedent nor by evidentiary standards that assure the maintenance of those claims. Thus, for example, rather than relying on witnesses sworn to truthfulness, it may use anonymous sources, who suffer no consequences for dishonesty. In fact, as it often rules through mere "accusation," no limits seem to exist on the nature or extent of the accusations, just as there are no limits on who can be accused.

The press's proceedings occur "with or without inquiry or hearing,  at the court's discretion " (emphasis in original). The press acts on its own initiative, rather than through citizen or executive complaint. It can pick and choose its own cases — selectively closing its eyes to some, while opening them to others — not with a view to satisfying justice or the law, but in accordance with its own prejudices or interests. Since the press follows its own discretion, its operations and methods are not fully knowable, and one therefore cannot appeal to it rationally. The press is conscious of this supremacy, Franklin contends.

The press also resembles a religious court, Franklin half-jokes, the "Spanish Court of Inquisition," in its moral authority to force and shape belief through fear and intimidation. Like the Spanish Inquisition, the press enforces its pre-eminence by reaching into individual souls and compelling belief. When the press acts against individuals and institutions:

The accused is allowed no grand jury to judge of the truth of the accusation before it is publicly made, nor is the Name of the Accuser made known to him, nor has he an Opportunity of confronting the Witnesses against him; for they are kept in the dark, as in the Spanish Court of Inquisition.

The open presentation of evidence of wrongdoing corroborated by facts shows respect for rational and transparent procedures that embody the spirit of justice. Such proceedings presume citizens' intellectual capacity to be convinced by the force of facts and arguments. With the Inquisition, to the contrary, assent is founded on fear and intimidation, as one would expect from despotism. Here there is darkness, mystery, and anxious anticipation. In its practice, Franklin contends, the press contradicts the principles by which it justifies its authority: It claims that belief stems from the free and rational persuasion of the mind, but in its deeds it insists that belief should be compelled through its own powers of insinuation, intimidation, and accusation.

The press has a despotic inclination for making citizens experience its overwhelming power: It takes an "honest" and "good" citizen who, through what is almost a miraculous transformation, "in the same Morning" is judged and condemned by the press to be a " Rogue  and a  Villain " (emphasis in the original). Its rapidity and forcefulness appear to be almost irresistible. Though the press does not burn individuals at the stake, nonetheless, like tribunals of the Spanish Inquisition, Franklin sees in the press the capacity for fanaticism originating in complete confidence in its ability to judge.

This unrestrained power can even willfully direct public opinion against the law itself, perhaps despite the public's interests. We witness one contemporary example of this power. Whatever one's view of immigration policy might be, the press, by relentlessly calling "illegal aliens" "undocumented immigrants" for years, has subtly altered public sympathies against would-be enforcers of the law. The press can make the law appear weak and its authority questionable in comparison to its own power.

Although prepared to subvert the law at times, the press relies on the law's protection when using it for its own advantages:

[I]f an officer of this court receives the slightest check for misconduct in this his office, he claims immediately the rights of a free citizen by the constitution, and demands to know his accuser, to confront the witnesses, and to have a fair trial by a jury of his peers.

In sum, the press sometimes reveres and sometimes subverts the law; sometimes it guides public opinion toward the law, sometimes against it. But the press always seems to know its interest in maintaining its superiority over the public mind. 

SUPERIORITY AND MEDIOCRITY  

Franklin asks us to contrast this remarkable power with the character of the members of the class wielding it. The freedom of the press creates a new human type that dominates the liberal-democratic landscape to this day. This new type is "appointed to this great Trust" of guiding the public intellect, deciding upon citizens' fates, and sometimes even determining the future of the nation.

This new class, Franklin notes, is open to anyone. The officers of the press corps are not appointed by an executive authority on the basis of their virtue. Nor is the press a hereditary institution governed by and therefore subordinated to considerations of honor or tradition. (Franklin is not in favor of such alternatives, of course.) As such, he observes that under the new democratic conditions, this class is self-created, so to speak:

[A]ny Man who can procure Pen, Ink, and Paper, with a Press, and a huge pair of Blacking Balls, may commissionate himself; and his court is immediately established in the plenary Possession and exercise of its rights.

The effect of this, for Franklin, is the creation of a class requiring neither "Ability, Integrity, [nor] Knowledge." Surely these qualities sometimes exist — look at Franklin! — but just as surely they are not necessary prerequisites. Franklin chooses his words carefully, subtly leading us to ask whether, in practice, these virtues often become their opposites: Sensationalism will often be mistaken for ability, contempt for all those inferior to it mistaken for integrity, and pedantry mistaken for knowledge. Franklin suggests that the public mind may come to imitate this confusion of virtue and vice under the press's influence.

This class of unelected opinion makers is also unified by a specific motive, Franklin contends. It is a community that shares the "privilege of accusing and abusing the other four hundred and ninety-nine parts at their pleasure." These numbers are invented, of course, but Franklin is pointing to the hidden motive unifying this community — the mutual indulgence in feigned superiority, the pleasure of punishing, and a taste for contempt for one's fellow citizens and for would-be rulers. Can one serve the public if one has contempt for it?

Furthermore, Franklin observes that the powers granted to the press, through the principle authorizing its existence, often culminate in the appearance of principled courage. Feeling its superiority to individual citizens or other public institutions, the press rebels against inquiries into its authority and the modes of its rule: "For, if you make the least complaint of the  judge's  conduct, he daubs his blacking balls in your face wherever he meets you." What at first glance may seem like dignified courage in carrying out its duties is perhaps merely the protection of its own superiority coupled with vengeance against those questioning it. 

Indeed, the press, Franklin argues, may use its capacity to "[mark] you out for the odium of the public, as an  enemy to the liberty of the press ," in order to suppress dissent against its authority. This has the effect of crushing the voice of reason in citizens along with the self-confidence necessary for them to voice their thoughts publicly. Franklin tacitly suggests that, over time, citizens may lose their habits of reason through this kind of rule.

One barely needs to add that this class serves for its own "Emolument." Franklin draws our attention to a dual unity in motive: Satisfying the pleasures of ruling citizens and indulging its own taste for contempt become financially lucrative under these new democratic circumstances. In an era of egalitarianism, most human beings are born without genuine wealth, the security of inherited social class and standing, or special destiny. Individuals therefore to a greater extent than ever before  become  their professions.

It's important to point out that during Franklin's time, owners of printing presses printed all kinds of things for profit: newspapers, books, and pamphlets, encompassing every subject, sometimes including the printing of the libelous and scurrilous as well. Our newspapers no longer do precisely this, of course (though it is subject to debate whether appearing to praise oneself for alleged objectivity, as newspapers do today, while printing what is essentially partisan, has polluted the moral and intellectual waters more than when, as during Franklin's time, all citizens knew that the press was for hire). Nevertheless, the problem Franklin draws our attention to is still with us. When intermixed with the self-serving powers to command public opinion, merely aspiring to uphold a principle for one's livelihood rarely results in independence of mind or judgment. In fact, the appearance of acting on principle can be lucrative.

As Franklin makes clear, it is not entirely obvious whether the press's belief in its guiding principles is sincere, as it does not apply them equally to all other individuals or institutions. Today, for example, much of the press class is in favor of campaign-finance laws that regulate the expression of candidates, parties, and interest groups, but is uninterested in applying similar regulations to itself. Taken to its logical extreme, this may suggest that this class has a secret motive, aiming to limit free speech by making only its own speech acceptable. Its unwillingness to subject itself to the same standards of law and regulations as other authorities is suspect.

HUMAN WEAKNESS

Franklin also sees in the press a tendency to deform and undermine the idealism necessary for republicanism. Republicanism presumes that citizens are willing, at times, to sacrifice a great deal for liberty, like the signers of the Declaration of Independence who mutually pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor. Yet it is difficult to love liberty if it is experienced as moral chaos, which the press can infuse into democratic life. In fact, Franklin fears that political liberty, as redefined by the press, may come to mean the "Liberty of affronting, calumniating, and defaming one another." In such an environment, liberty may come to be experienced as burdensome, tedious, and ugly, encouraging citizens to "cheerfully consent to exchange [their]  Liberty  of Abusing others for the  Privilege  of not being abus'd [themselves]."

In theory, the freedom of the press presumes that what is most crucially common to all human beings is each individual's rational faculty, on the basis of which modern republicanism is created and defended. Thus, for Franklin, among the highest manifestations of the freedom of the press is the "Liberty of discussing the Propriety of Public Measures and political opinions." By this definition, he seems to mean the publication of works like the Federalist Papers (which appeared as a series of newspaper columns) or his own writings — though he is of course aware that this standard is rarely achieved in practice. Such writings elevate and deepen citizens. One should contrast Franklin's understanding to the recently developed public view of speech which considers dignified any spasmodic effusion of half-formed feeling, obscenity, or agitation subversive of republicanism.

These powers to abuse rather than bolster republican idealism and rational habits of character, Franklin contends, find their "natural Support" in human resentment. Resentment, a "depravity" of the human character, is a powerful though hidden source of the press's power over the mind. Franklin quotes Juvenal's  Satires  to explain:

There is a Lust in Man no Charm can tame,  Of loudly publishing his Neighbour's Shame.  On Eagle's Wings immortal Scandals fly,  While virtuous Actions are but born and die.

Resentment is an ugly, double-sided passion. It leads one to assert moral superiority over others, thereby demanding superior desert for oneself, while simultaneously desiring that harm befall others so as to protect one's own inflated self-appraisal. As Franklin politely puts it, "Whoever feels pain in hearing a good character of his neighbour, will feel a pleasure in the reverse." Resentment does not even depend on one's own faring well, for one can be resentful and at the same time prosperous.

Franklin is being neither flippant nor pedantic regarding the central importance of resentment. He is pointing to the deeper problem which resentment reveals — human confusion about desert. As Jerry Weinberger has argued in  Benjamin Franklin Unmasked , among the central premises of Franklin's philosophical thought is that human beings want more for themselves than they deserve. This desire deludes our judgment, distorts our opinion of ourselves, and to a great extent accounts for the human comedy of errors. It also accounts for our jealous hatred of others' success.

This passion, in conflict with republicanism, is flattered by the press, Franklin argues. In amplifying and dignifying resentment, the press cultivates its own popularity and reach. There are always many "who, despairing to rise into distinction by their virtues, are happy if others can be depressed to a level with themselves." In flattering the public's resentment, the press blinds it to its own mediocrity, Franklin suggests. Today, this psychology follows a predictable pattern: tacitly or overtly belittling or ridiculing human greatness, cutting it down to a digestible size, while exposing and laughing at private vices — or, alternatively, encouraging indulgence in feigned great moral feeling without the requirement of sacrifice or sincerity. The steady stream of examples of baseness, greed, and dishonesty teach the lesson that such individuals are no better than you — in fact, they are worse, because you can look down upon them. By implicitly calling resentment high-mindedness in flattering its audience, the press often both ridicules virtue and avoids making mediocrity appear contemptible.

Franklin sees the formation of a community of mutual flattery between the press's desire to rule and the public's resentment. On the one hand, fostering resentments maintains the press's power over the public — for in satisfying the public in such a way, it is allowed to govern the public's tastes and passions. And the public, on the other hand, in showing its gratitude for not being targeted or undone by the press, redoubles rewards by showing obliging subordination.

Thus, in a final sense of the press's playing the role of a "court," it is akin to a monarchical court, for it serves a monarch — the public. Yet in serving its monarch, does the press play the role of the French revolutionary, re-enacting the guillotine by beheading individuals or institutions in order to satisfy the public's resentments? Oddly, the press, originally conceived as an essential means by which to preserve political and intellectual freedom, may become a mechanism through which the public oppresses itself.  In suggesting that the lust to satisfy resentment guides "such minds, as have not been mended by religion, nor improved by good education," Franklin is goading us to consider more closely the kind of education he is providing his readers, which can correct this natural defect. His wit makes us aware of our defects, while his humor attempts to shame us out of them.

LIBERTY OF PRIDE AND HONOR

Is it possible to correct for these abuses of the free press? Unlike the other powers enumerated in the Constitution, Franklin observes that the press has no corresponding check against it:

[S]o much has been written and published on the federal Constitution, and the necessity of checks in all other parts of good government has been so clearly and learnedly explained, I find myself so far enlightened as to suspect some check may be proper in this part also; but I have been at a loss to imagine any that may not be construed an infringement of the sacred  liberty of the press .

Franklin jokes that the only check he can find is the " liberty of the cudgel ." In other words, the press is free to print as it pleases so long as citizens are free to go to an authentic offender "and break his head." Franklin's ludicrous solution points to a contradiction in republican laws.

Self-government presumes a certain measure of self-respect and pride among citizens. Republicanism depends on the conviction that individuals have the psychological and physical ability to order their lives and to legislate for themselves and their community on the basis of their judgment.

Individual pride, of course, cannot be given full reign in a republic, nor can its demands be fully satisfied. When carried to its extremes, pride points to absurd self-importance and tyranny. In republics, individual pride must be restrained to some degree for the protection of others' rights, for too much of it can destroy a republic. Yet republican law puts man in an odd state: On the one hand, man desires the full security of his pride and therefore his reputation — loving his reputation perhaps more than his life, as Franklin observes — while the law constrains his ability to defend it fully against its attackers. Defending one's self-respect, Franklin implies, is perhaps a right as much as any other. On the other hand, however, "the right [of the press] of abusing seems to remain in full force, the laws made against it being rendered ineffectual by the  liberty of the press " (emphasis in original). Citizens cannot fully protect their self-respect while the press is given broad authorization to abuse it. For Franklin, the effect of this may be the weakening of citizens' pride and the diminishing of their attachment to self-government, which correspondingly grows the space for the press's influence over the mind. 

What is to be done, according to Franklin? He jokes, "[L]eave the liberty of the press untouched, to be exercised in its full extent, force, and vigor; but to permit the  liberty of the cudgel  to go with it  pari passu " (emphasis in the original). Franklin wants the vindication of republican pride — not just because he honors such sentiments, but because he thinks that such a counterbalance or check, like the checks employed in other parts of the Constitution, is necessary against the press's powers, too. In fact, the public can unite if it is affronted, " as it ought to be ," by the press's abuses (emphasis in original). The public can show its "moderation," he jokes, by "tarring and feathering, and tossing them in a blanket." Franklin is of course not advocating such actions, but he does want the public to recall its power to humiliate.

Franklin concludes by emphasizing the need to secure citizens' reputations:

If, however, it should be thought that this proposal of mine may disturb the public peace, I would then humbly recommend to our legislators to take up the consideration of both liberties, that of the  press , and that of the  cudgel , and by an explicit law mark their extent and limits; and, at the same time that they secure the person of a citizen from  assaults , they would likewise provide for the security of his  reputation .

Balancing both liberties, for Franklin, ought to be among the highest considerations of legislators and statesmen — the liberty of the press and the liberty to defend one's pride. One wonders whether Franklin here explicitly means only libel laws, or is also referring to citizens who are jealous of their liberty and who know their power. 

The press exists as an institution to protect and strengthen republicanism, resting on the idea that human beings and public institutions must be made good, or, as we say today, made responsible. But the press can also exceed its limits, becoming over-powerful and therefore no longer serving the interests of the society that hosts it. Franklin's solutions to the problems created by the press are partly comical, both because they are exaggerated and because relatively little, it seems, can be done about the effectual truth of this principle.

To some degree, the conservative oppositional press begun a few generations ago has addressed what is among the worst diseases of a republic: the centralization of the press. As Tocqueville observes:

When a large number of organs of the press come to advance along the same track, their influence becomes almost irresistible in the long term, and public opinion, struck always from the same side, ends by yielding under their blows.

The press's powers (as analyzed by Franklin), combined with centralization, may be lethal to a republic. In this regard, America's conservative oppositional press — which has no parallel anywhere else in the Western world — has greatly contributed to breaking up centralization. Yet having guided us away from the shoal of centralization, the oppositional press has created new problems.

With the help of new media technologies, the oppositional press has ushered into existence the parallel universes that American citizens now construct for themselves by choosing which press better flatters their prejudices. Alarmingly, citizens who inhabit each of these monolithic realities are more than merely at partisan ends of a political spectrum — they have become to some degree almost different kinds of beings, given the extent of their differences in sentiments, passions, habits of character, and tastes. Indeed, the new multiplicity of news sources, despite some obviously healthy effects, can create a greater and greater cacophony of similar sentiments while reducing genuine thoughtfulness. This need not, however, be our nation's final situation.

The quality of our press will decide the fate of our civilization. We might try to follow Franklin's general lessons in order to facilitate public discourse: bolstering citizen pride as a means of preventing the press's excesses; diminishing the public's resentment by ridiculing rather than flattering it; all while recalling that the press must serve republicanism rather than weaken it. For this to be possible, the press must renew its self-understanding. And the public ought to demand it. On the side of the press, this would mean a new devotion to elevating political debate — while consciously avoiding self-flattery, dogmatism, and partisan dishonesty — about important political questions facing the nation. On the side of the public, this means deepening its understanding of the stakes to the nation, and showing a new willingness to speak freely and rationally, despite the obstacles of political correctness or fear of intimidation.

Finally, lessons in moderating the press's power and reach may be seen in Franklin's own activity. Perhaps lampooning and parodying the press — that is, exposing it, its inferior personages, and its interests, through film, books, and on stage, as Franklin himself did — can liberate the democratic mind to some degree from its power. Also following Franklin, we see that democratic resentment — though exploited by the press — can be harnessed and directed toward useful ends. For example, resentment can despise and envy the great, or it can satisfy itself through the prosecution of corruption, both governmental and that of the press itself.

This piece originally appeared in National Affairs

The principles of America’s Founders must be restored to their proper role in the public and political discourse, influencing public policy and reforming government to reflect constitutional limits. 

Learn more about a wide range of conservative policies that reflect the vision of our Founders with Solutions .

Resources:  Constitutional Guidance for Lawmakers |   First Principles Essays |  The Founders’ Almanac | Makers of Political Thought |  Moments in American History |  Primary Sources

COMMENTARY 3 min read

COMMENTARY 4 min read

Subscribe to email updates

© 2024, The Heritage Foundation

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

Visiting a Durian Orchard

Benefits of Reading Newspaper

A Prize Giving Ceremony

Essay On Career

TikTok Bans Viral ‘milk Crate Challenge’ over Safety Concerns

Home Treatments for Molluscum Contagiosum

Sample Application format for Death Certificate

Client Meeting Agenda

Managing Strategy and Strategic Planning

Atmospheric Greenhouse Effects

Latest post.

Mass Flow Controller

Electrohydraulic Forming

How Parasites Shape Complex Food Webs

Artificial Intelligence aids Scientists in Designing Plants to Combat Climate Change

Using Self-cleaning Wall Paint

Voltage Optimisation

• 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

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• History of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• History of Art
• Theory of Art
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• History by Period
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Linguistics
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• History of Religion
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cultural Studies
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Criminal Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business History
• Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Browse content in Economics
• Economic History
• Financial Institutions and Services
• History of Economic Thought
• Browse content in Education
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Environment
• Browse content in Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Sociology
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Theory
• Politics and Law
• Public Administration
• Public Policy
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Regional and Area Studies
• Browse content in Sociology
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Reviews and Awards
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

9 David Hume and ‘Of The Liberty of the Press’ (1741) in its Original Contexts1

• Published: April 2020
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

David Hume’s contribution to the eighteenth-century debate about the limits of the freedom of the press – ‘Of the Liberty of the Press’ (1741) – has usually been considered in the context of the Scotsman’s extensive revisions of the essay in the wake of ‘Wilkes and Liberty’ in the late 1760s and early 1770s. Plenty of historians have already written about how and why Hume, in response to popular discontents in London, removed his initial and more positive conclusion about press freedom and instead called it one of the inconveniences of mixed governments. By contrast, little has been said about what initially prompted the essay. When the first version of the essay is considered in its original setting in the late 1730s and early 1740s, we learn that the essay was written in the context of the paper war between Walpole’s Court Whig administration (1721–42) and a Country/Patriot opposition consisting of Tories, Whigs and Jacobites. In this context, the ‘Liberty of the Press’ had become an opposition slogan, as Walpole sought to rein in freedom of speech by harassing opposition journalists and printers, outlawing parliamentary reporting during sessions and introducing censorship of stage plays. In contrast with later editions of the essay, Hume took a clear stance in favour of the liberty of the press, referring to it as ‘the common right of mankind’. However, although Hume was very loosely associated with oppositions Whigs at this time, for example the Marchmont family, this should not be regarded as an unconditional espousal of anti-Walpole propaganda. Crucially, Hume appears to have favoured conciliation rather than confrontation with Spain in 1739. As will be shown, his argument was distinctly independent, and his defence of press freedom was much more sceptical than that of Protestant thinkers who called it a human or natural right.

Signed in as

Institutional accounts.

• Google Scholar Indexing
• GoogleCrawler [DO NOT DELETE]

Personal account

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code

Institutional access

• Sign in with a library card Sign in with username/password Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Sign in through your institution

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Sign in with a library card

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

OF THE LIBERTY OF THE PRESS

Rendered into HTML and text by Jon Roland Editing and additional notes based on that of Eugene F. Miller

NOTHING is more apt to surprize a foreigner, than the extreme liberty, which we enjoy in this country, of communicating whatever we please to the public, and of openly censuring every measure, entered into by the king or his ministers. If the administration resolve upon war, it is affirmed, that, either wilfully or ignorantly, they mistake the interests of the nation, and that peace, in the present situation of affairs, is infinitely preferable. If the passion of the ministers lie towards peace, our political writers breathe nothing but war and devastation, and represent the pacific conduct of the government as mean and pusillanimous. As this liberty is not indulged in any other government, either republican or monarchical; [1] in HOLLAND and VENICE, more than in FRANCE or SPAIN; it may very naturally give occasion to a question, How it happens that GREAT BRITAIN alone enjoys this peculiar privilege ?

The reason, why the laws indulge us in such a liberty seems to be derived from our mixed form of government, which is neither wholly monarchical, nor wholly republican. It will be found, if I mistake not, a true observation in politics, that the two extremes in government, liberty and slavery, commonly approach nearest to each other; and that, as you depart from the extremes, and mix a little of monarchy with liberty, the government becomes always the more free; and on the other hand, when you mix a little of liberty with monarchy, the yoke becomes always the more grievous and intolerable. In a government, such as that of FRANCE, which is absolute, and where law, custom, and religion concur, all of them, to make the people fully satisfied with their condition, the monarch cannot entertain any jealousy against his subjects, and therefore is apt to indulge them in great liberties both of speech and action. In a government altogether republican, such as that of HOLLAND, where there is no magistrate so eminent as to give jealousy to the state, there is no danger in intrusting the magistrates with large discretionary powers; and though many advantages result from such powers, in preserving peace and order, yet they lay a considerable restraint on men's actions, and make every private citizen pay a great respect to the government. Thus it seems evident, that the two extremes of absolute monarchy and of a republic, approach near to each other in some material circumstances. In the first , the magistrate has no jealousy of the people: in the second , the people have none of the magistrate: Which want of jealousy begets a mutual confidence and trust in both cases, and produces a species of liberty in monarchies, and of arbitrary power in republics.

To justify the other part of the foregoing observation, that, in every government, the means are most wide of each other, and that the mixtures of monarchy and liberty render the yoke either more easy or more grievous; I must take notice of a remark in TACITUS with regard to the ROMANS under the emperors, that they neither could bear total slavery nor total liberty, Nec totam servitutem, nec totam libertatem pati possunt . [2] This remark a celebrated poet has translated and applied to the ENGLISH, in his lively description of queen ELIZABETH'S policy and government,

Et fit aimer son joug a l'Anglois indompté, Qui ne peut ni servir, ni vivre en liberté , HENRIADE, liv . I. [3]

According to these remarks, we are to consider the ROMAN government under the emperors as a mixture of despotism and liberty, where the despotism prevailed; and the ENGLISH government as a mixture of the same kind, where the liberty predominates. The consequences are conformable to the foregoing observation; and such as may be expected from those mixed forms of government, which beget a mutual watchfulness and jealousy. The ROMAN emperors were, many of them, the most frightful tyrants that ever disgraced human nature; and it is evident, that their cruelty was chiefly excited by their jealousy , and by their observing that all the great men of ROME bore with impatience the dominion of a family, which, but a little before, was no wise superior to their own. On the other hand, as the republican part of the government prevails in ENGLAND, though with a great mixture of monarchy, it is obliged, for its own preservation, to maintain a watchful jealousy over the magistrates, to remove all discretionary powers, and to secure every one's life and fortune by general and inflexible laws. No action must be deemed a crime but what the law has plainly determined to be such: No crime must be imputed to a man but from a legal proof before his judges; and even these judges must be his fellow-subjects, who are obliged, by their own interest, to have a watchful eye over the encroachments and violence of the ministers. From these causes it proceeds, that there is as much liberty, and even, perhaps, licentiousness in GREAT BRITAIN, as there were formerly slavery and tyranny in ROME.

These principles account for the great liberty of the press in these kingdoms, beyond what is indulged in any other government. It is apprehended, that arbitrary power would steal in upon us, were we not careful to prevent its progress, and were there not an easy method of conveying the alarm from one end of the kingdom to the other. The spirit of the people must frequently be rouzed, in order to curb the ambition of the court; and the dread of rouzing this spirit must be employed to prevent that ambition. Nothing so effectual to this purpose as the liberty of the press, by which all the learning, wit, and genius of the nation may be employed on the side of freedom, and every one be animated to its defence. As long, therefore, as the republican part of our government can maintain itself against the monarchical, it will naturally be careful to keep the press open, as of importance to its own preservation.

It must however be allowed, that the unbounded liberty of the press, though it be difficult, perhaps impossible, to propose a suitable remedy for it, is one of the evils, attending those mixt forms of government.

1 . [Hume nowhere discusses thematically the important question of how the various forms of government should be classified, but he touches on the question in many places. This essay suggests that governments are to be classified as republics, monarchies, or, as in the case of Great Britain, a mixture of republican and monarchical elements. Aristocracy and "pure" democracy would, in this classification, be types of republican government, as would the representative system that Hume describes in "Idea of a Perfect Commonwealth." The distinction in the present essay between liberty and despotism or slavery is not equivalent or even parallel to that between republics and monarchies. Hume maintains that freedom can prevail in monarchical government, just as despotism can prevail in republics.]

2 . [Tacitus (A.D. 55?-120?) The Histories 1.16.28. The quotation comes at the end of a speech by Emperor Galba to Piso, upon adopting Piso as his successor: "For with us there is not, as among peoples where there are kings, a fixed house of rulers while all the rest are slaves, but you are going to rule over men who can endure neither complete slavery nor complete liberty" (Loeb translation by Clifford H. Moore).]

3 . [François Marie Arouet (1694-1778), who wrote under the name Voltaire, first published La Henriade in 1723 under a different title and republished it, with alterations, under the present title in 1728. Its hero is Henry of Navarre, who became King Henry IV of France. The passage praising Elizabeth reads: "And she made her yoke dear to the unconquered English, who can neither serve nor live in liberty."]

Contents  |  Text Version  |  Home  |  Constitution Society

Ensuring Freedom of the Press Requires a Global Effort

Youth multimedia room.

The articles was produced by the Youth Multimedia Room. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the contributors of the Youth Multimedia Room and do not represent the views of UNESCO or its partners. The designations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNESCO or its partners.

Speaking at the World Press Freedom Day session titled “Seeking common ground: how can multilateral initiatives shape the future of the information space”, UNESCO’s Assistant Director-General for Communication and Information, Tawfik Jelassi, said there is no country that can address the issue of freedom of expression locally.

Mr. João Brant, Secretariat of Communication of the Presidency of the Republic, Brazil, explained that although countries have different political positions, the issue of freedom of expression equally affects their economic, educational, and environmental conditions. He reflected on the need to consolidate global agreements that allow oversight of the information exercise, calling it a “global pact” to strengthen democracy and the participation of civil society.

While the Internet has made it possible for communication to transcend borders, there are currently no verification regulations for all the content that goes viral, as Camila Vallejo, Minister of the Secretary General of the Government of Chile, pointed out: “How could we implement global agreements to be more effective, so that this stops being such a harmful tool and starts to be a tool of democracy and inclusion?”

Understanding the scale of the disinformation challenges in terms of policies and research requires more evidence to contextualize the decisions of nations and propose effective solutions, according to Camille Grenier, from the Forum on Information and Democracy. 

Melissa Flemming, who heads the UN Department of Global Communication, assures that “it is a large issue that has to be treated as we treat the environmental crisis. If there is information pollution, we have to do something about it.”

The panelists agreed that international cooperation is important to continue promoting initiatives such as those of UNESCO for the governance of digital platforms, but also aiming at training the producers of information and the users who receive the information.

Discover more articles

More on this subject.

Other recent articles

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

Table of Contents

Freedom of The Press Essay: 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 ---

Also Check: World Press Freedom Day 2024

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.

Also Check: Speech on Freedom of Press

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

• Share full article

Advertisement

Protect Journalists, Everywhere

By Kathleen Kingsbury

Opinion Editor

Friday is World Press Freedom Day, and The Times is lending its pages to amplifying the cause of bringing home the hundreds of missing or jailed journalists across the globe.

“The need for factual and reliable information has never been greater,” write The Times’s publisher, A.G. Sulzberger, and its executive editor, Joe Kahn, alongside the leaders of The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal, in an open letter published Friday morning, “but threats to journalists around the world are more prevalent than ever.”

Russia has wrongfully detained Evan Gershkovich, a former Times colleague now at The Wall Street Journal, for more than a year. Austin Tice , a schoolmate of mine and freelance journalist for The Washington Post, has been held in Syria for 11 years, his parents allowed very little to no information about his condition. Unfortunately, there are many like them.

Since Oct. 7, at least 97 journalists , the majority of them Palestinians, have been killed amid the Middle East conflict. And Israel continues to deny reliable access to Gaza to facilitate international, independent coverage, as Jodie Ginsberg, the head of the Committee to Protect Journalists, recently detailed for Times Opinion.

In addition to Evan’s case, the editorial board in March highlighted Vladimir Putin’s attempts to suppress critical reporting on his regime, including the plight of Alsu Kurmasheva, a journalist and dual American-Russian citizen. The charges against both are a travesty, as the board says , and the U.S. government should continue to do everything in its power to help.

Of course, sometimes suppression of independent media is more subtle. Consider the smear campaign against Gustavo Gorriti , a storied Peruvian journalist, who now faces charges in an apparent retaliation for reporting on corruption. Or the imprisonment of the Guatemalan journalist José Zamora on what press freedom groups say are false charges meant to muzzle him.

Hong Kong, once a rare beacon for press freedom in Asia, is a changed place after China passed its strict national security law in 2020. The newspaper publisher Jimmy Lai and others have been imprisoned on trumped-up charges such as sedition since. As Lai’s son wrote in Times Opinion last September, “Authorities in the city are showing the world they no longer tolerate the very things that once made it so great: free speech, the rule of law and a love for liberty.”

It’s a message that rings painfully loud in far too many places today.

Kathleen Kingsbury is the Opinion editor of The New York Times, overseeing the editorial board and the Opinion section. Previously she was the deputy editorial page editor. She joined The Times in 2017 from The Boston Globe, where she served as managing editor for digital. She received the 2015 Pulitzer Prize for distinguished editorial writing. @ katiekings

More From Forbes

Press freedom - for the planet, democracy and rights.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

Journalists demonstrate against the murder of Chilean journalist Francisca Sandoval who was shot ... [+] dead while covering a Labour Day march in 2022, as Chilean President Gabriel Boric was delivering his speech during the inauguration of the World Press Freedom Day Conference, in Santiago, on May 3, 2024. (Photo credit: Rodrigo ARANGUA / AFP via Getty Images)

May 3 marks World Press Freedom Day , a day designated by the United Nations to galvanize action to ensure and protect press freedom globally. It gives the opportunity to assess the state of press freedom throughout the world, defend the media from attacks on their independence, and pay tribute to journalists who have lost their lives in the line of duty, among others. In 2024, World Press Freedom Day is dedicated to the importance of journalism and freedom of expression in the context of the current global environmental crisis.

As reported by the U.N., “journalists encounter significant challenges in seeking and disseminating information on contemporary issues, such as supply-chains problems, climate migration, extractive industries, illegal mining, pollution, poaching, animal trafficking, deforestation, or climate change. Ensuring the visibility of these issues is crucial for promoting peace and democratic values worldwide.” Dis- and misinformation about environmental issues can lead to a lack of public and political support for climate action, effective policies, and the protection of vulnerable communities affected by climate change, as well as of women and girls, as climate change tends to exacerbate existing inequalities.

Reporting on environmental issues comes with high risks which go far beyond challenging the science covered by them. As reported by UNESCO , 70% of environmental journalists from 129 countries, polled in March 2024, reported experiencing attacks, threats or pressure related to their job. Of those, two in five subsequently experienced physical violence. As the UNESCO report states, at least 749 journalists and news media outlets reporting on environmental issues were targeted with murder, physical violence, detention and arrest, online harassment or legal attacks in the period 2009-2023. More than 300 attacks occurred between 2019-2023 – a 42% increase on the preceding five-year period (2014-2018). The problem is global, with attacks taking place in 89 countries in all regions of the world. UNESCO’s Observatory of Killed Journalists records the killing of at least 44 journalists investigating environmental issues over the last 15 years, of which only five have resulted in convictions – a shocking impunity rate of almost 90%.

In order to protect press freedom, the U.N. proposes a comprehensive strategy to include the need to prevent and protect against crimes committed against journalists, ensure the rights to freedom of expression, freedom of scientific research, and access to key sources of information, in addition to combating dis-/misinformation through journalism, and promote the plurality, diversity, and viability of media, especially regional, local, indigenous, and/or community-based media, among others.

These recommendations are key to press freedom, whether for environmental journalists or journalists more broadly. Journalists continue to be killed globally, and very little is being done to ensure their safety. As reported by Reporters Without Borders, in 2023, at least 50 journalists were killed when performing their job. According to their data, the deadliest place for journalists in 2023 was in the Palestinian territories, where 16 deaths were counted in just the last three months of the year. The top of the list was then followed by Mexico with four deaths reported there in 2023, three in Afghanistan, three in Bangladesh, three in Lebanon, and two deaths in Cameroon, Ukraine and the Philippines, respectively.

Apple iPhone 16 New Design And Performance Upgrades Revealed In Leak

Google s aggressive new pixel 8 discounts are not ending, samsung releases new feature boost to millions of galaxy phones.

UNESCO identified at least 65 journalists who have been killed in the line of duty in 2023. While according to UNESCO, the overall number of deaths may have been on the decrease, the number of killings in conflict zones has increased. As UNESCO stressed , “at least 38 journalists and media workers were killed in the line of work in countries in conflict in 2023, compared to 28 in 2022 and 20 in 2021. The ongoing hostilities in the Middle East were responsible for a large majority of conflict-related killings, with UNESCO having so far reported 19 killings in Palestine, 3 in Lebanon and 2 in Israel since 7 October. Afghanistan, Cameroon, Syria and Ukraine also each saw at least two killings.”

As UNESCO indicates, such attacks contribute to what it refers to as “zones of silence” opening up in many conflict zones. This has severe consequences for access to information, both for local populations and the world at large. In the words of U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres, “Without freedom of the press, there are no real democratic societies. Without freedom of the press, there is no freedom.”

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

Founders Online --> [ Back to normal view ]

[on freedom of speech and the press, 17 november 1737], [on freedom of speech and the press].

Printed in The Pennsylvania Gazette , November 17, 1737, and following issues.

Duane ( Works , IV , 319–40) and, on his authority, though less certain, Sparks ( Writings , ii, 285–311), printed this long historical essay with its examples drawn mainly from Roman and English history. It is signed “X.” No evidence, internal or external, persuades the present editors that Franklin wrote it.

Index Entries

You are looking at.

• International
• Today’s Paper
• Premium Stories
• Express Shorts
• Health & Wellness
• Board Exam Results
• Brand Solutions

This Quote Means: ‘Freedom of the press is a precious privilege that no country can forego’, by Gandhi

As a mass leader, gandhi was aware of the power of people coming together to demand large-scale social change. despite its flaws, freedom of the press needs to be preserved. notably, quotes related to historical figures also form a part of the upsc civil services exam..

May 3 marks World Press Freedom Day, in recognition of protecting the core principles guiding journalism. The United Nations proclaimed the day as such in December 1993, to mark the anniversary of the Declaration of Windhoek.

Signed in Namibia in 1992 during a UNESCO seminar on “Promotion of an Independent and Pluralistic African Press”, it outlined ideals such as the important responsibilities of journalists towards their profession, the need for a non-monopolistic media industry, and the freedom of the press.

During a recent address at the UN General Assembly, its President Dennis Francis said: “In the words of Mahatma Gandhi, ‘freedom of the press is a precious privilege that no country can forego.’ On #WorldPressFreedomDay , let’s reaffirm our commitment to protecting journalists and media workers worldwide.”

While Gandhi the politician or Gandhi the mass leader is often talked about, a lesser-known aspect of his public persona is how he also considered himself a journalist. Gandhi served as a writer and editor for several magazines and newspapers. Why did Gandhi say this quote, and what relevance does it have today? We explain.

Notably, quotes related to historical figures also form a part of the UPSC Civil Services Exam.

Gandhi the journalist

As a mass leader, Gandhi was aware of the power of people coming together to demand large-scale social change. Since his days in South Africa, he attempted to mobilise the Indian community.

At 33, Gandhi launched the newspaper Indian Opinion . As historian Ramchandra Guha notes, its goals were “To make the white man sensitive to coloured needs and aspirations, and to unite the diaspora, were the two principal objectives. But there was also a third: to make Indians more sensitive to their own frailties.”

Here, we see some of the evergreen principles related to journalism. It serves as a common medium through which people can exchange ideas and know about what is happening in their world. It acts as a record of a period in time, showing what people thought then, their aspirations, and who they were aimed at.

Through stories, journalism can help people understand their commonalities and issues of mutual concern, or even help them see things from different perspectives. On a basic level, it can serve as a bridge between various social groups by reporting on all sections of society.

Gandhi also recognised the need for a free press. The idea refers to not just safeguards from political repression, but also corporate interests.

He once wrote in an edition of Indian Opinion in 1912: “We now feel that we should also discontinue the practice of publishing advertisements. We believed then that advertisements were a good thing to have but on reflection we see that the practice is wholly undesirable. Advertisements are inserted by people who are impatient to get rich, in order that they may gain over their rivals…”

Also, especially in Gandhi’s era, there were very limited accessible means of mass communication. Over time, he would launch papers in India too, such as Young India, Navajivan and Harijan.

What the quote means

A free press may not be perfect. Often, the structure of the press is such that dominant social groups can take control of narratives for the most part, ultimately advancing their own interests and ideas.

By no means was Gandhi’s work as a journalist without flaws. As Guha writes, “Some later historians of a Marxist bent have seen Indian Opinion as reflecting the class bias of the merchants who financed it. The journal did indeed take up questions of taxation and trade that affected the merchants.”

Nonetheless, a lack of restrictions on the press can also allow for its criticism and pave the way for course correction. Therefore, while flawed, a free press matters.

Guha writes of Indian Opinion , “It also vigorously polemicized on behalf of Indian indentured labourers. And on occasion it took up the cause of the Africans, writing of their dispossession by European farmers, and of the ‘anomaly’ whereby they could not get to represent themselves in Parliament.”

Foregoing the freedom of the press means there are few avenues to register criticism of institutions in society – the government, the politicians, the judiciary; or ideologies such as patriarchy, casteism, colonialism and so on. This would mean a top-down system with no system for feedback, leading to the decay of a country which refuses to see its flaws.

In this way, freedom of the press is a privilege – something not accorded easily. But its absence is detrimental to the society as a whole.

• Express Explained
• Mahatma Gandhi
• UPSC Essentials
• World Press Freedom Day

Arunima Rai, a student from Chandigarh, achieved 97% in ISC Class 12 non-medical and topped the Tricity. Despite not qualifying for IIT, she plans to pursue Computer Science with a focus on AI and Data Science from prestigious private colleges. She credits her success to hard work, consistency, and belief in her skills.

More Explained

Best of Express

EXPRESS OPINION

May 07: Latest News

• 01 Nearly half of MPs who represented Mumbai since 1951 were non-Marathis
• 02 Unused EU recovery funds should go towards defence, Polish ministers say
• 03 IPL 2024 Purple cap update: Jasprit Bumrah extends lead at the top after MI vs SRH
• 04 Holocaust researchers use AI to search for unnamed victims
• 05 Russian drone attack disrupts power supply to parts of Ukraine’s Sumy region
• Elections 2024
• Political Pulse
• Entertainment
• Movie Review
• Newsletters
• Gold Rate Today
• Silver Rate Today
• Petrol Rate Today
• Diesel Rate Today
• Web Stories

• Latin America
• Expat Living
• Art and Culture
• Science and Tech
• Classifieds
• Advertise with Us

Panama: A Nation of Contrasts and Opportunity

Panama, a narrow Central American nation holding presidential elections this Sunday, has gained prominence in the regional migration crisis despite its thriving economy driven by the interoceanic Panama Canal. The country’s strategic location and the Panama Canal, which handles 6% of world maritime trade, have contributed to its economic growth, with the United States and China being its main users.

However, Panama’s political system has been marked by clientelism and corruption, with former President Ricardo Martinelli recently seeking asylum to avoid imprisonment for money laundering.

The country’s reputation has been tarnished by its status as a tax haven, further exacerbated by the “Panama Papers” scandal in 2016, which revealed widespread tax evasion and money laundering through Panamanian law firms. Despite legal reforms introduced after the scandal, Panama remains on the European Union’s list of “tax havens.”

Additionally, the country faces challenges such as poverty, a shortage of drinking water, and a deficient garbage collection system, while the inhospitable Darién jungle on the Colombian border serves as a perilous passage for migrants traveling from South America to the United States.

The Panama Canal, 80 km long, connects the Pacific with the Atlantic and handles 6% of world maritime trade. Its main users are the United States and China, with which the country has strengthened its economic and investment ties after breaking with Taiwan in 2017.

The United States completed it in 1914, after a failed French attempt. For 86 years, the Canal Zone was a State within another State.

In 1977, U.S. President Jimmy Carter and Panamanian nationalist general Omar Torrijos signed agreements to transfer the canal to Panama by the end of 1999. Expanded in 2016, it is the engine of the country’s economy, which grew 7.3% in 2023.

Noriega and the USA

On December 20, 1989, the U.S. Army invaded Panama and overthrew dictator Manuel Antonio Noriega , whom they captured and took to the United States, where he was convicted of drug trafficking.

Officially, the invasion left about 500 dead, but some organizations claim there were thousands, especially in the bombing of the El Chorrillo neighborhood, near Noriega’s headquarters. After the invasion, Panama dissolved the army. Since then, there have been periodic elections.

Noriega was imprisoned for drug trafficking, money laundering, and the disappearance of opponents in the United States, France, and Panama, where he died in 2017.

The “Panama Papers”

The image of a “tax haven” worsened with the “ Panama Papers ” scandal in April 2016, when the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists reported that personalities from around the world evaded taxes and laundered capital through the Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca.

The investigation was based on the leak of 11.5 million documents from the law firm. Rulers, politicians, bankers, athletes, and artists hid properties, companies, assets, and profits through the creation of opaque companies in Panama.

After the “Panama Papers”, the country introduced legal reforms, but the European Union keeps it on its list of “tax havens”.

The “Dubai of the Americas”

Panama’s capital is the city of skyscrapers in Latin America. Former President Ricardo Martinelli (2009-2014) promoted Panama as the “Dubai of the Americas” for its skyscrapers, casinos, 150 banks, and the only subway in Central America.

But the country, with 4.4 million inhabitants, has a poverty rate of 22%, a shortage of drinking water, and a deficient garbage collection system.

Its political system is marked by clientelism and corruption. Martinelli was convicted of money laundering and took asylum in February at the Nicaraguan Embassy to avoid going to prison.

But Panama is also a land of folklore and music. It is the birthplace of salsa singer Rubén Blades, author of the popular song “Pedro Navaja”, and former boxer Roberto “Hands of Stone” Durán.

The Feared Darién

The Panamanian territory is jungle-like, and the most inhospitable area is the Darién jungle , bordering Colombia. The Pan-American Highway could never be completed there, and now it serves as a passage for migrants who travel from South America to the United States: more than half a million in 2023.

The migrants, mostly Venezuelans, Haitians, Ecuadorians, Colombians, and Chinese, face the danger of criminal gangs, wild animals, and mighty rivers.

Latest Articles

Cne declares green alert for rincon de la vieja volcano, us and latin america seek migration crisis solutions in guatemala, costa rica’s struggle with currency appreciation, jose raul mulino elected president of panama, lando norris claims first f1 win in miami, popular reads, panama’s high court approves mulino’s candidacy, panama faces pivotal presidential election amidst controversy, reviving panama’s lost economic boom, panama’s roux vows to end corruption in campaign close.