Freedom of the Press/Threatening to government: Difference between revisions
(Created page with "{{Right section |right=Freedom of the Press |section=Limitations - Restrictions |question=Threatening to government |questionHeading=Is this right often perceived as threatening to government authorities? |pageLevel=Question |contents=While freedom of the press is outlined in the constitution, public trust in the media has continued to waver. In a Gallup Poll done in October 2018, it was found that “only 45% of Americans had a high degree or fair amount of trust in the...") |
No edit summary |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
|questionHeading=Is this right often perceived as threatening to government authorities? | |questionHeading=Is this right often perceived as threatening to government authorities? | ||
|pageLevel=Question | |pageLevel=Question | ||
|contents= | |contents=An example of why freedom of the press may appear threatening to those in power is because of the speed at which information moves, and the way it can shape critical events, like elections. Oftentimes it may seem like the news outlets have a bias, for example, “cable organizations are labeled as liberal or conservative instead of just news. Information flows on social media and Internet sites at lightning-fast speed with no way to verify accuracy” (Wermiel, 2019). | ||
In 1798, Congress passed the Sedition Act which allowed for people to be prosecuted when they “brought the president of the government into disrepute and ridicule” (Wermiel, 2019). So, freedom of the press can also appear to be threatening because it allows people to voice their concerns about the decisions of the US government. However, government officials may pass laws to ensure this doesn’t happen. This act was created because President Wilson and Congress wanted to eliminate people speaking out about their opposition to the involvement of the United States in the war (This Day in History). | |||
Freedom of the press may be perceived as threatening to government authorities when the media is able to uncover the wrongdoings or abuse of the government because it could prevent citizens from fully trusting the government in its ability to do things in the best interest of its citizens. For example, “Watergate” is “synonymous with political crime and corruption” (Watergate). President Nixon was not a big fan of freedom of the press; according to William Robinson, who worked for the New York Herald Tribune, he believed that it was a “handy refuge for subtle as well as overt character assassination” (Farell, 2014). | Freedom of the press may be perceived as threatening to government authorities when the media is able to uncover the wrongdoings or abuse of the government because it could prevent citizens from fully trusting the government in its ability to do things in the best interest of its citizens. For example, “Watergate” is “synonymous with political crime and corruption” (Watergate). President Nixon was not a big fan of freedom of the press; according to William Robinson, who worked for the New York Herald Tribune, he believed that it was a “handy refuge for subtle as well as overt character assassination” (Farell, 2014). | ||
However, even if some people in government positions may view freedom of the press as threatening, the Supreme Court has upheld the press’ right to report on anything they deem important. For example, in the Supreme Court case New York Times Company v Sullivan, the “actual malice” test was created, which requires that a public figure demonstrates that someone knew the information they were reporting was false, but proceeded to use it anyway (Oyez). So, while news outlets can post whatever they want, they run the risk of being sued for libel (the publication of false information). | However, even if some people in government positions may view freedom of the press as threatening, the Supreme Court has upheld the press’ right to report on anything they deem important. For example, in the Supreme Court case New York Times Company v Sullivan, the “actual malice” test was created, which requires that a public figure demonstrates that someone knew the information they were reporting was false, but proceeded to use it anyway (Oyez). So, while news outlets can post whatever they want, they run the risk of being sued for libel (the publication of false information). | ||
In order to cover up anything that government authorities may not want known, they have “made explicit attempts to silence critical media voices and strengthen outlets that serve up favorable coverage” (Repucci). It may appear that some government officials want to be seen in a positive light, and they could attempt to remove any media that depicts them in a way that’s different from that. | In order to cover up anything that government authorities may not want known, they have “made explicit attempts to silence critical media voices and strengthen outlets that serve up favorable coverage” (Repucci, 2019). It may appear that some government officials want to be seen in a positive light, and they could attempt to remove any media that depicts them in a way that’s different from that. | ||
Wermiel, Stephen. | Wermiel, Stephen. 2019. “Freedom of the Press: Challenges to This Pillar of Democracy.” www.americanbar.org. March 26, 2019. | ||
“U.S. Congress Passes Sedition Act.” | https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/publications/insights-on-law-and-society/volume-19/insights-vol-19-issue-2/freedom-of-the-press/. | ||
“Watergate.” | |||
History.com Editors. 2019. “U.S. Congress Passes Sedition Act.” HISTORY. July 29, 2019. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/u-s-congress-passes-sedition-act. | |||
FBI. “Watergate.” Federal Bureau of Investigation. https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/watergate. | |||
Farrell, John Aloysius. 2014. “When Nixon Met the Press.” POLITICO Magazine. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/08/nixon-and-the-media-109773/. | |||
Oyez. 2018. “New York Times Company v. Sullivan.” Oyez. 2018. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1963/39. | |||
Repucci, Sarah. 2019. “Media Freedom: A Downward Spiral.” Freedomhouse.org. Freedom House. 2019. https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-and-media/2019/media-freedom-downward-spiral. | |||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 21:27, 31 July 2024
Is this right often perceived as threatening to government authorities?
An example of why freedom of the press may appear threatening to those in power is because of the speed at which information moves, and the way it can shape critical events, like elections. Oftentimes it may seem like the news outlets have a bias, for example, “cable organizations are labeled as liberal or conservative instead of just news. Information flows on social media and Internet sites at lightning-fast speed with no way to verify accuracy” (Wermiel, 2019). In 1798, Congress passed the Sedition Act which allowed for people to be prosecuted when they “brought the president of the government into disrepute and ridicule” (Wermiel, 2019). So, freedom of the press can also appear to be threatening because it allows people to voice their concerns about the decisions of the US government. However, government officials may pass laws to ensure this doesn’t happen. This act was created because President Wilson and Congress wanted to eliminate people speaking out about their opposition to the involvement of the United States in the war (This Day in History). Freedom of the press may be perceived as threatening to government authorities when the media is able to uncover the wrongdoings or abuse of the government because it could prevent citizens from fully trusting the government in its ability to do things in the best interest of its citizens. For example, “Watergate” is “synonymous with political crime and corruption” (Watergate). President Nixon was not a big fan of freedom of the press; according to William Robinson, who worked for the New York Herald Tribune, he believed that it was a “handy refuge for subtle as well as overt character assassination” (Farell, 2014). However, even if some people in government positions may view freedom of the press as threatening, the Supreme Court has upheld the press’ right to report on anything they deem important. For example, in the Supreme Court case New York Times Company v Sullivan, the “actual malice” test was created, which requires that a public figure demonstrates that someone knew the information they were reporting was false, but proceeded to use it anyway (Oyez). So, while news outlets can post whatever they want, they run the risk of being sued for libel (the publication of false information). In order to cover up anything that government authorities may not want known, they have “made explicit attempts to silence critical media voices and strengthen outlets that serve up favorable coverage” (Repucci, 2019). It may appear that some government officials want to be seen in a positive light, and they could attempt to remove any media that depicts them in a way that’s different from that.
Wermiel, Stephen. 2019. “Freedom of the Press: Challenges to This Pillar of Democracy.” www.americanbar.org. March 26, 2019.
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/publications/insights-on-law-and-society/volume-19/insights-vol-19-issue-2/freedom-of-the-press/.
History.com Editors. 2019. “U.S. Congress Passes Sedition Act.” HISTORY. July 29, 2019. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/u-s-congress-passes-sedition-act.
FBI. “Watergate.” Federal Bureau of Investigation. https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/watergate.
Farrell, John Aloysius. 2014. “When Nixon Met the Press.” POLITICO Magazine. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/08/nixon-and-the-media-109773/.
Oyez. 2018. “New York Times Company v. Sullivan.” Oyez. 2018. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1963/39.
Repucci, Sarah. 2019. “Media Freedom: A Downward Spiral.” Freedomhouse.org. Freedom House. 2019. https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-and-media/2019/media-freedom-downward-spiral.