Source/Freedom of the Press

History

What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right? BUILD IN COLLAPSE EXPAND TOGGLE

Afghanistan

Article 31 of the 1964 Afghani Constitution states that “every Afghan shall have the right to express thoughts through speech, writing, illustrations as well as other means in accordance with provisions of this constitution” (University of Nebraska, “Constitution of Afghanistan,” 1964). Every Afghan shall have the right, according to provisions of law, to print and publish on subjects without prior submission to state authorities. Directives related to the press, radio and television as well as publications and other mass media shall be regulated by law.” This clause is now located in Article 34 of the 2004 Afghani Constitution (Constitute Project, “Afghanistan’s Constitution of 2004”).

Albania

Article 53 of the 1976 Albanian Constitution states that “citizens enjoy the freedom of speech, the press, organization, association, assembly and public manifestation. The state guarantees the realization of these freedoms, it creates the conditions for them, and makes available the necessary material means” (Andersen, “The Albanian Constitution of 1976).

Today, Part 2, Article 22 of the 1998 Albanian Constitution recognizes freedom of the press, radio, and television as part of its list of “Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms”. Article 22 also states that “Prior censorship of means of communication is prohibited” (Constitute Project, Albania's Constitution of 1998 with Amendments through 2012”).

Algeria

Article 19 of the 1963 Algerian Constitution states that “the Republic guarantees freedom of the press and of other means of information, freedom of association, freedom of speech and public intervention, and freedom of assembly” (Middle East Journal, 1976).

Today, Article 54 of the Algerian Constitution protects freedom of the press, stating that “freedom of the press, be it written, audiovisual, or on media networks, shall be guaranteed equally for all public and private media outlets. It shall not be restricted by any form of prior censorship” (Constitute Project, “Algeria 2020”).

Andorra

Article 12 of the 1993 Andorran Constitution states that Freedoms of expression, of communication and of information are guaranteed. The law shall regulate the right of reply, the right of correction and professional secrecy” (Constitute Project, “Andorra’s 1993 Constitution”).

Angola

Article 35 of the 1992 Constitution marked Angola’s first explicit legal mention of freedom of the press: “Freedom of the press shall be guaranteed and may not be subject to any censorship, especially political, ideological or artistic. The manner of the exercise of freedom of the press and adequate provisions to prevent and punish any abuse thereof shall be regulated by law” (World Bank, “Constitutional Law of the Republic of Angola 1992”).

Today, Article 44 of the 2010 Angolan Constitution maintains that “freedom of the press shall be guaranteed, and may not be subject to prior censorship, namely of a political, ideological or artistic nature” (Constitute Project, “Angola’s 2010 Constitution”).

Antigua and Barbuda

Schedule 1, Chapter II of Antigua and Barbuda’s Constitution titled “Protection of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms of the Individual” explicitly protects freedom of the press (Political Database of the Americas, “The Antigua and Barbuda Constitutional Order 1981”).

Argentina

Article 32 of the 1853 Argentinian Constitution states that “the Federal Congress shall not enact laws that restrict the freedom of the press or that establish federal jurisdiction over it” (Constitute Project, “Argentina's Constitution of 1853, Reinstated in 1983, with Amendments through 1994”).

Armenia

Article 42 of the 1995 Armenian Constitution protects freedom of the press: “The freedom of the press, radio, television and other means of information shall be guaranteed. The state shall guarantee the activities of an independent public television and radio offering a diversity of informational, educational, cultural, and entertainment programs” (Constitute Project, “Armenia's Constitution of 1995 with Amendments through 2015”).

Australia

Australia has no formal protection of press freedom in its constitution (Australian Human Rights Commission). Australia’s High Court has ruled that an “implied freedom of political communication exists as an indispensable part of the system of representative government created by the Constitution” in Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Wills (1992), Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v the Commonwealth (1992), and Unions NSW v New South Wales (2013).

Austria

Article 13 of Austria’s 1867 “Basic Law on the General Rights of Nationals in the Kingdoms and Länder represented in the Council of the Realm” states that “Everyone has the right within the limits of the law freely to express his opinion by word of mouth and in writing, print, or pictorial representation. The Press may be neither subjected to censorship nor restricted by the licensing System. Administrative postal distribution vetoes do not apply to inland publication” (Basic Law of 21 December 1867).

Azerbaijan

Article 50 of the Azerbaijani Constitution of 1995 states “The freedom of mass media is guaranteed. State censorship of mass media, including print media, is forbidden” (Constitute Project, “Azerbaijan's Constitution of 1995 with Amendments through 2016”).

The Bahamas

Article 23 of the 1973 Bahamian Constitution states that:

“Nothing contained in or done under the authority of any law shall be held to be inconsistent with or in contravention of this Article to the extent that the law in question makes provision which is reasonably required for the purposes of protecting the rights, reputations and freedoms of other persons, preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, maintaining the authority and independence of the courts, or regulating telephony, telegraphy, posts, wireless broadcasting, television, public exhibitions or public entertainment” (Constitute Project, “Bahamas (The)'s Constitution of 1973”).

Bahrain

Article 24 of the 2002 Bahraini Constitution states that “with due regard for the provisions of the preceding Article, the freedom of the press, printing and publishing is guaranteed under the rules and conditions laid down by law” (Constitute Project, “Bahrain's Constitution of 2002 with Amendments through 2017”).

Bangladesh

Bangladesh’s 1972 Constitution states that “the right of every citizen of freedom of speech and expression; and freedom of the press are guaranteed” (Constitute Project, “Bangladesh's Constitution of 1972, Reinstated in 1986, with Amendments through 2014”).

Barbados

Barbados’s 1966 Constitution does not explicitly protect freedom of the press, but includes freedom to “receive” and “communicate ideas and information without interference” in its protection of freedom of expression (Political Database of the Americas, “Constitution of 1966”).

Belarus

Belarus’s 1994 Constitution states that “No monopolization of the mass media by the State, public associations or individual citizens and no censorship shall be permitted” (Constitute Project, “Belarus's Constitution of 1994 with Amendments through 2004”).

Belgium

Article 25 of the 1831 Belgium Constitution states that “The press is free; censorship can never be introduced; no security can be demanded from authors, publishers or printers. When the author is known and resident in Belgium, neither the publisher, the printer nor the distributor can be prosecuted” (Constitute Project, “Belgium's Constitution of 1831 with Amendments through 2014”).

Belize

Belize’s 1981 Constitution states that “nothing contained in or done under the authority of any law shall be held to be inconsistent with or in contravention of this section to the extent that the law in question makes reasonable provision… that is required for the purpose of… maintaining the authority and independence of the courts or regulating the administration or the technical operation of telephone, telegraphy, posts, wireless broadcasting, television or other means of communication, public exhibitions or public entertainments” (Constitute Project, “Belize's Constitution of 1981 with Amendments through 2011”).

Benin

Benin protects freedom of the press under Article 24 of its 1990 Constitution: “Freedom of the press shall be recognized and guaranteed by the State. It shall be protected by the High Authority of Audio-Visuals and Communications under the conditions fixed by an organic law” (Constitute Project, “Benin's Constitution of 1990”).

Bhutan

Article 7, Section 5 of Bhutan’s 2008 Constitution protects freedom of the press: “There shall be freedom of the press, radio and television and other forms of dissemination of information, including electronic” (Constitute Project, “Bhutan's Constitution of 2008”).

Bolivia

Protection of press freedom is located in Article 106, Section III of the 2009 Bolivian Constitution: “The State guarantees freedom of expression and the right to communication and information to workers of the press” (Constitute Project, “Bolivia (Plurinational State of)'s Constitution of 2009”).

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Constitution does not formally protect freedom of the press. However, Article 4 of the 2002 Law on Communications recognizes freedom of expression across broadcasting and telecommunications (Office of the High Representative, “Law on Communications of Bosnia and Herzegovina”).

Botswana

Chapter II, Section 12, subsection 2 of the 1966 Botswana Constitution states that “Nothing contained in or done under the authority of any law shall be held to be inconsistent with or in contravention of this section to the extent that the law in question makes provision…regulating the technical administration or the technical operation of telephony, telegraphy, posts, wireless, broadcasting or television” (Constitute Project, “Botswana's Constitution of 1966 with Amendments through 2005”).

Brazil

Article 179, Section IV of Brazil’s 1824 Constitution originally protected press freedom: “Everyone can communicate their thoughts, in words, in writing, and publish them in the Press, without dependence on censorship; as long as they will have to answer for the abuses that commit in the exercise of this Right, in the cases, and for the form, that the Law determines” (Political Database of the Americas, “1824 Constitution”).

Today, press freedom is protected under Chapter I, Article 5 of the 1988 Constitution: “expression of intellectual, artistic, scientific, and communication activity is free, independent of any censorship or license” (Constitute Project, “Brazil's Constitution of 1988 with Amendments through 2017”).

Brunei

The Brunei Constitution contains no protections for freedom of the press and grants the government powers for “censorship, the control and suppression of publications, writings, maps, plans, photographs, communications and means of communication” in states of emergency” (Constitute Project, “Brunei Darussalam's Constitution of 1959 with Amendments through 2006”).

Bulgaria

The first mention of freedom of the press appeared in Article VIII of the 1879 Tarnovo Constitution: “The press is free. No censorship is allowed, and no pledge is required of writers, publishers and printers” (Durzhavna Petchatnitsa, 1906). [Translated from Bulgarian]

Today, press freedom is protected under Article 40 of the 1991 Constitution: “The press and the other mass information media shall be free and shall not be subjected to censorship” (Constitute Project, “Bulgaria's Constitution of 1991 with Amendments through 2007”).

Burkina Faso

Article 8 of Burkina Faso’s 1991 Constitution protects freedom of the press: “The freedoms of opinion, of the press and the right to information are guaranteed” (Constitute Project, “Burkina Faso's Constitution of 1991 with Amendments through 2012”).

Burundi

Article 28 of Burundi’s 1981 Constitution protected press freedom: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression in accordance with the public and the law. Freedom of press is recognized and guaranteed by the State” (Constitution of Burundi).

Title XII, Article 284 of Burundi’s 2005 Constitution protects freedom of the press through the National Council of Communication: “The National Council of Communication has, to the effect, a power of decision notably in the matter of the respect for and the promotion of the freedom of the press and the equitable access of the diverse political, social, economic and cultural opinions to the public media” (Constitute Project, “Burundi's Constitution of 2005”). While this clause does not appear in today’s 2018 Constitution, the National Communication Council is still referenced and maintains similar responsibilities (Constitute Project, “Burundi’s Constitution of 2018).

Cambodia

Cambodia originally protected freedom of the press under Section 2, Article 9 of its 1947 Constitution: “Every Cambodian is free to speak, write, print and publish. He may, either by way of the press or any other means express, spread, defend every opinion so long as he makes no unauthorized use of that right or does not tend to disturb the public order.”

Today, Chapter III, Article 41 of the 1993 Cambodian Constitution protects press freedom: “Khmer citizens shall have freedom of expression of their ideas, freedom of information, freedom of publication and freedom of assembly (Constitute Project, “Cambodia 1993 (rev. 2008)”).

Cameroon

Section 16 of the 1972 Cameroonian Constitution’s Preamble protects press freedom, citing the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “the freedom of communication, of expression, of the press, of assembly, of association, and of trade unionism, as well as the right to strike shall be guaranteed under the conditions fixed by law” (Constitute Project, “Cameroon's Constitution of 1972 with Amendments through 2008”).

Canada

Freedom of the press is protected under section 2(b) of Canadian Charter on Rights and Freedoms as part of the Constitution Act of 1982: “Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: • (a) freedom of conscience and religion; • (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; • (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and • (d) freedom of association.”

(Justice Laws Website, “Constitution Act 1982”).

Cape Verde

Cape Verde protects press freedom under Article 45 of its 1980 Constitution: “Everyone shall have the freedom to inform and to be informed, obtaining, receiving, and giving out information and ideas in any form without limitation, discrimination, or impediment” (Constitute Project, “Cape Verde's Constitution of 1980 with Amendments through 1992”).

Central African Republic

Article 15 of the 2016 Constitution states that “the freedom of the press is recognized and guaranteed. It is exercised within the conditions established by the law” (Constitute Project, “Central African Republic's Constitution of 2016”).

Chad

Chad’s 1959 first protected freedom of the press under Article 5: “the press is free, whatever its mode of expression. The conditions for exercising freedom of the press are determined by law” (Journal Officiel de la Communauté). [Translated from French]

Today, press freedom is protected under Title II, Article 28 of the 2018 Constitution: “The freedoms of opinion and of expression, of communication, of conscience, of religion, of the press, of association, of assembly, of movement, and of demonstration are guaranteed to all” (Constitute Project, Chad's Constitution of 2018).

Chile

Chile originally protected freedom of the press under Article XXIII of its 1812 Provisional Constitutional Regulations: “The press will enjoy legal freedom; and so that it does not degenerate into a license harmful to religion, customs and honor of citizens and country; rules will be prescribed by the Government and Senate” (Biblioteca del Congreso Nacional de Chile). [Translated from Spanish].

Today, Chapter III, Article 19 of Chile’s 1980 Constitution protects press freedom: “Freedom to express opinion and to inform, without prior censorship, in any form and by any medium, without prejudice to responsibility for any crimes or abuses committed in the exercise of these freedoms, in conformity with the law, which must be of qualified quorum. In no case can the law establish [a] state monopoly over the media of social communication” (Constitute Project, “Chile's Constitution of 1980 with Amendments through 2012”).

Chile is currently drafting a new constitution.

China

One of the earliest references to press freedom came about in 1904, when “the newspaper Dongfang Zazhi (The Eastern Miscellany) published a leading article arguing that in a country where people were allowed to express their opinions freely, its citizens were wiser than those who lived in a country where press freedom was not guaranteed.” This article echoed the sentiment of many leading Chinese intellectuals at the time (Guo 89-90, 2020).

Legally, Chapter III, Article 87 of China’s 1954 Constitution first protected freedom of the press. Today, similar language is located in Chapter II, Article 35 of China’s Constitution: “Citizens of the People’s Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration” (The National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China, “Constitution”).

Colombia

The first legal reference to press freedom in Colombia arose in Article 16 of Cundinamarca’s Departmental Constitution in 1811: “The Government guarantees to all its citizens the sacred rights of Religion, individual property and freedom, and that of the press, the authors being solely responsible for their productions…” (Biblioteca Virtual Miguel de Cervantes). [Translated from Spanish]

Today, Title II, Article 20 of Colombia’s 1991 Constitution protects press freedom: “Every individual is guaranteed the freedom to express and diffuse his/her thoughts and opinions, to transmit and receive information that is true and impartial, and to establish mass communications media (Constitute Project, “Colombia's Constitution of 1991 with Amendments through 2005”).

Comoros

Press freedom protections first appeared in the Preamble of Comoros’s 1996 Constitution: “Inspired by the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights , it proclaims and guarantees…freedom of thought and opinion, of the press and of publishing, of creation and of literary, artistic and scientific production” (Digithèque MJP, “Constitutional law of October 20, 1996”).

Today, Chapter II, Article 18 of the 2009 Comoros Constitution protects press freedom: “Freedom of information, communication, and the press are guaranteed within the conditions established by law” (Constitute Project, “Comoros's Constitution of 2018”).

Democratic Republic of the Congo

Article 26 of the DRC’s 1964 Constitution first established protections for press freedom: “Freedom of the press is guaranteed to all Congolese” (Digithèque MJP, “Constitution of August 1, 1964”).

Today, Title II, Article 24 of the DRC’s 2005 Constitution protects freedom of the press: “The freedom of the press, the freedom of information and of broadcasting by radio and television, the written press or any other means of communication are guaranteed, under reserve of respect for the law, for public order, for morals and for the rights of others” (Constitute Project, “Congo (Democratic Republic of the)'s Constitution of 2005 with Amendments through 2011”).

Republic of the Congo

Article 25 of Republic of Congo’s 2015 Constitution protects press freedom: “Any citizen has the right to express and to freely diffuse his opinion by words [par la parole], writing, images or by any other means of communication. The freedom of information and communication is guaranteed. It is exercised within respect for the law” (Constitute Project, “Congo (Republic of the)'s Constitution of 2015”).

Costa Rica

Costa Rica originally operated under the Spanish Constitution of 1812, which protected freedom of the press under Article 131: The powers and duties of the Courts are…to protect the political liberty of the press” (Biblioteca Virtual Miguel de Cervantes, “The Political Constitution of the Spanish Monarchy: Promulgated in Cádiz, the nineteenth day of March”).

Today, Title IV, Article 29 of the 1949 Costa Rican Constitution protects freedom of the press: “Every one may communicate their thoughts by words or in writing and publish them without prior censorship; but they will be responsible for the abuses committed in the exercise of this right, in the cases and the mode that the law establishes” (Constitute Project, “Costa Rica's Constitution of 1949 with Amendments through 2011”).

Croatia

As a former part of Yugoslavia, freedom of the press was protected in Croatia under Article 36 of the Yugoslavian Constitution: “Freedom of the press and other forms of public information shall be guaranteed. Citizens shall have the right to express and publish their opinions in the mass media” (National Legislative Bodies, “Constitution of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia”).

Today, Croatia protects freedom of the press under Article 38 of its 1991 Constitution: “Freedom of expression shall specifically include freedom of the press and other media of communication, freedom of speech and public expression, and free establishment of all institutions of public communication” (Constitute Project, “Croatia's Constitution of 1991 with Amendments through 2010”).

Cuba

Cuba’s 1901 Constitution, its first as an independent nation, protected press freedom under Article 25: “Every person may freely, without censorship, express his thought either by word of mouth or in writing, through the press, or in any other manner whatsoever, subject to the responsibilities specified by law, whenever thereby attacks are made upon the honor of individuals, upon social order, and upon public peace” (George A. Smathers Libraries, “Translation of the proposed constitution for Cuba”).

Today, Article 55 of the 2019 Cuban Constitution protects press freedom: “People's freedom of press is recognized. This right is exercised according to the law and for the good of society. The fundamental means of social communication, in any of their forms, are the socialist property of all people or of political, social, and mass organizations, and may not be categorized as any other type of property. The State establishes the principles of organization and operation for all means of social communication” (Constitute Project, “Cuba's Constitution of 2019”).

Cyprus

Article 19 of Cyprus’s 1960 Constitution protects press freedom: “Every person has the right to freedom of speech and expression in any form. This right includes freedom to hold opinions and receive and impart information and ideas without interference by any public authority and regardless of frontiers” (Constitute Project, “Cyprus's Constitution of 1960 with Amendments through 2013”).

Czech Republic

As a part of Czechoslovakia, freedom of the press was protected by Article 113 of the 1920 Czechoslovakian Constitution: “Freedom of the Press as well as the right to assemble peaceably and without arms and to form associations is guaranteed” (Masarykova Univerzita, “The Constitutional charter of the Czechoslovak Republic”).

Today, Article 17 of the 1992 Czech Constitution protects freedom of the press: “Everyone has the right to express his views in speech, in writing, in the press, in pictures, or in any other form, as well as freely to seek, receive, and disseminate ideas and information irrespective of the frontiers of the state” (Constitute Project, “Czech Republic's Constitution of 1993 with Amendments through 2002”).

Denmark

Section 77 of Denmark’s 1849 Constitutional Act states that “Any person shall be at liberty to publish his ideas in print, in writing, and in speech, subject to his being held responsible in a court of law. Censorship and other preventive measures shall never again be introduced” (Folketinget, “My Constitutional Act”). This clause is still located in Section 77 of the 1959 iteration of the Danish Constitution, which Denmark currently adopts (Constitute Project, “Denmark's Constitution of 1953”).

Djibouti

Djibouti does not formally recognize freedom of the press, but protects the right to “to disseminate freely their opinions by word, pen, and image” under Article 15 of its 1992 Constitution (Constitute Project, “Djibouti's Constitution of 1992 with Amendments through 2010”).

Dominica

Dominica protects the “freedom to receive ideas and information without interference, freedom to communicate ideas and information without interferences” and protects the “technical administration or the technical operation of telephony, telegraphy, posts, wireless broadcasting or television” under Article 10 of its 1978 Constitution (Constitute Project, “Dominica's Constitution of 1978 with Amendments through 2014”).

Dominican Republic

Article 23 of the Dominican Republic’s 1844 Constitution first protected press freedom: “All Dominicans can freely print and publish their ideas, without prior censorship, subject to the law. The classification of printing crimes corresponds exclusively to the juries” (Mi Pais, “Primera Constitución Dominicana). [Translated from Spanish]

Today, article 49 of the Dominican Republic’s Constitution protects press freedom: “All persons have the right to freely express their thoughts, ideas, and opinions by any medium, without having allowed for prior censorship… All information media have free access to the official and private sources of information of public interest, in accordance with the law. The professional secret and the conscience clause of the journalist are protected by the Constitution and the law” (Constitute Project, “Dominican Republic's Constitution of 2015”).

East Timor

Article 41 of Timor-Leste’s 2002 Constitution protects press freedom: “Freedom of the press and other means of social communication is guaranteed…” (Constitute Project, “Timor-Leste's Constitution of 2002”).

Ecuador

Article 63 of Ecuador’s 1830 Constitution guaranteed that “Every citizen can freely express and publish their thoughts through the press, respecting public decency and morals, and always subjecting themselves to the responsibility of the law” (Wikisource, “Constitution of Ecuador of 1830: Title VIII”).

Today, Article 16 of the 2008 Ecuadorian Constitution protects press freedom: “ “All persons, individually or collectively, have the right to: 1. Free, intercultural, inclusive, diverse and participatory communication in all spheres of social interaction, by any means or form, in their own language and with their own symbols. 2. Universal access to information and communication technologies. 3. The creation of media and access, under equal conditions, to use of radio spectrum frequencies for the management of public, private and community radio and television stations and to free bands for the use of wireless networks 4. Access and use of all forms of visual, auditory, sensory and other communication that make it possible to include persons with disabilities. 5. Become part of participation spaces as provided for by the Constitution in the field of communication.” (Constitute Project, “Ecuador's Constitution of 2008”)

Egypt

Article 15 of Egypt’s 1923 Constitution initially protected freedom of the press: “The press shall be free within the limits of the law. Censorship of newspapers shall be prohibited. Warning, suspension or cancellation of papers via administrative means shall also be prohibited unless necessary for protecting social order” (Constitutionnet, “Royal Decree No. 42 of 1923”).

Today, Article 70 of the 2014 Egyptian Constitution protects press freedom: “Freedom of press and printing, along with paper, visual, audio and digital distribution is guaranteed. Egyptians -- whether natural or legal persons, public or private -- have the right to own and issue newspapers and establish visual, audio and digital media outlets” (Constitute Project, “Egypt's Constitution of 2014”).

El Salvador

Article 175 of El Salvador’s first Constitution, which it ratified as a province in the United Provinces of Central America in 1824, protected press freedom: “The Congress, the Assemblies, or the other authorities may not restrict, in any case or by any pretext, the freedom of thought, that of the word, that of writing and that of the press” (Biblioteca Virtual Miguel de Cervantes, “Title X. Guarantees of individual freedom”). [Translated from Spanish]

Today, Article 6 of El Salvador’s 1983 Constitution contains some protections for freedom of the press: “Every person may freely express and disseminate his thoughts provided they do not subvert the public order nor injure the moral, honor or private lives of others. The exercise of this right shall not be subject to previous examination, censorship or bond; but those who infringe on the laws [while] making use of this right, shall respond for the offense they commit” (Constitution Project, “El Salvador's Constitution of 1983 with Amendments through 2014”).

Equatorial Guinea

Equatorial Guinea’s 1991 Constitution contains no explicit press freedom protections (Constitute Project, “Equatorial Guinea's Constitution of 1991 with Amendments through 2012”).

Eritrea

Article 19 of the 1997 Constitution protects press freedom: “Every person shall have the freedom of speech and expression, including freedom of the press and other media” (Constitute Project, “Eritrea's Constitution of 1997”).

Estonia

Paragraph 13 of Estonia’s 1920 Constitution first outlined protections on press freedom: “In Estonia there is freedom for the expression of personal ideas in words, print, letters, pictures, and sculpture. This freedom can be restricted only in the defense of the State and morals” (Wikisource, “Constitution of the Esthonian Republic (1920)”).

Today, Article 45 of Estonia’s 1992 Constitution protects press freedom: “Everyone has the right to freely disseminate ideas, opinions, beliefs and other information by word, print, picture or other means” (Constitute Project, “Estonia's Constitution of 1992 with Amendments through 2015”).

Eswatini

Article 24 of Eswatini’s 2005 Constitution protects press freedom: “A person shall not except with the free consent of that person be hindered in the enjoyment of the freedom of expression, which includes the freedom of the press and other media” (Constitute Project, “Eswatini's Constitution of 2005”).

Ethiopia

Freedom of the press was first protected under Article 41 of Ethiopia’s 1955 Constitution: “Freedom of speech and of the press is guaranteed throughout the Empire in accordance with the law.”

Today, Article 29 of Ethiopia’s 1994 Constitution protects press freedom: “Freedom of the press and other mass media and freedom of artistic creativity is guaranteed. Freedom of the press shall specifically include the following elements: a. Prohibition of any form of censorship. b. Access to information of public interest.” (Constitute Project, “Ethiopia's Constitution of 1994”).

Fiji

Although it did not explicitly protect press freedom, Fiji’s 1970 Constitution did protect “freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference, and freedom from interference with…correspondence” (PacLII, “Fiji Independence Order 1970 and Constitution of Fiji”).

Today, Article 17 of Fiji’s 2013 Constitution explicitly protects press freedom: “Every person has the right to freedom of speech, expression, thought, opinion and publication, which includes… freedom of the press, including print, electronic and other media” (Constitute Project, “Fiji's Constitution of 2013”).

Finland

Section 10 of Finland’s 1919 Constitution Act included the “right to impart, publish and receive information, opinions and other communications without prior hindrance from anyone” as part of its protections on freedom of expression (National Legislative Bodies, “Constitution Act of Finland”).

Today, Section 12 of Finland’s 1999 Constitution protects the “right to express, disseminate and receive information, opinions and other communications without prior prevention by anyone” as part of its protections on freedom of expression (Constitute Project, “Finland's Constitution of 1999 with Amendments through 2011”).

France

The importance of press freedom was originally emphasized in Article XI of the 1789 Declaration of Rights of Man and of the Citizen: “The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law” (Yale Law School, “Declaration of the Rights of Man – 1789”).

This clause is now contained in Article 11 of the France’s 1958 Constitution (Constitute Project, “France's Constitution of 1958 with Amendments through 2008”).

Gabon

Article 94 of Gabon’s 1991 Constitution protects press freedom: “Audiovisual and written communication is free in the Gabonese Republic, restricted only by respect of the public order, liberty and dignity of its citizens” (Constitute Project, “Gabon's Constitution of 1991 with Amendments through 2011”).

The Gambia

Article 20 of The Gambia’s 1965 Constitution protected “freedom to receive ideas and information without interference, freedom to communicate ideas and information without interference (whether the communication be to the public generally or to any person or class of persons) and freedom from interference with his correspondence” under its protection of freedom of expression (Citizenship Rights Africa, “The Gambia Independence Order 1965”).

Today, Article 25 of The Gambia’s 1996 Constitution guarantees that “Every person shall have the right to… freedom of speech and expression, which shall include freedom of the press and other media” (Constitute Project, “Gambia (The)'s Constitution of 1996 with Amendments through 2004”).

Georgia

Article 23 of Georgia’s 1995 Constitution protects press freedom: “Everyone shall be free to receive and impart information, to express and disseminate his/her opinion orally, in writing, or otherwise. Mass media shall be free. Censorship shall be inadmissible” (Constitute Project, “Georgia's Constitution of 1995 with Amendments through 2013”).

Germany

Press freedom was first protected under Article 4 of the 1849 Frankfurt Constitution: “The freedom of the press shall be suspended under no circumstances through preventive measures, namely, censorship, concessions, security orders, imposts, limitation of publication or bookselling, postal bans, or other restraints” (Wadsworth, “Frankfurt Constitution of 1849”).

Article 5 of Germany’s 1949 Constitution protects press freedom: “Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship” (Constitute Project, “Germany's Constitution of 1949 with Amendments through 2014”).

Ghana

Ghana’s 1979 Constitution protected the right “to receive and impart ideas and information. without interference, and freedom from interference with his correspondence” (Constitutionnet, “Constitution of the Third Republic of Ghana (Promulgated) Decree, 1979”).

Today, Article 21 of Ghana’s 1992 Constitution protects press freedom: “freedom of speech and expression, which shall include freedom of the press and other media” (Constitute Project, “Ghana's Constitution of 1992 with Amendments through 1996”).

Greece

Article 14 of Greece’s 1975 Constitution protects press freedom: “The press is free. Censorship and all other preventive measures are prohibited…The seizure of newspapers and other publications before or after circulation is prohibited” (Constitute Project, “Greece's Constitution of 1975 with Amendments through 2008”).

Grenada

Article 10 of Grenada’s 1973 Constitution protects the “freedom to hold opinions without interference, freedom to receive ideas and information without interference, freedom to communicate ideas and information without interference (whether the communication be to the public generally or to any person or class of persons) and freedom from interference with his correspondence” as well as the “technical administration or the technical operation of telephony, telegraphy, posts, wireless broadcasting or television” (Constitute Project, “Grenada's Constitution of 1973, Reinstated in 1991, with Amendments through 1992”).

Guatemala

Article 175 of Guatemala’s first Constitution, which it ratified as a province in the United Provinces of Central America in 1824, protected press freedom: “The Congress, the Assemblies, or the other authorities may not restrict, in any case or by any pretext, the freedom of thought, that of the word, that of writing and that of the press” (Biblioteca Virtual Miguel de Cervantes, “Title X. Guarantees of individual freedom”). [Translated from Spanish]

Today, Article 35 of Guatemala’s 1985 Constitution protects press freedom: “The publications which contain denunciations, criticisms, or accusations [imputaciones] against functionaries or public employees for actions conducted in the performance of their duties[,] do not constitute a crime or a fault…The activity of the means of social communication is of public interest and in no case may they be expropriated. They may not be closed, attached [embargados], interfered with, confiscated, or seized [decomisados], nor may the enterprises, plants, equipment, machinery, and gear [enseres] of the means of communication be interrupted in their functioning, for faults or crimes in the expression of thought. The access to the sources of information is free and no authority may limit this right” (Constitute Project, “Guatemala's Constitution of 1985 with Amendments through 1993”).

Guinea

Article 7 of the 1990 Guinean Constitution protected freedom to “express, manifest, disseminate…ideas and opinions through speech, writing and image. He is free to learn and obtain information from sources accessible to all” (WIPO, “Constitution du 23 décembre 1990”) [Translated from French]

Today, Article 7 of Guinea’s 2010 Constitution protects press freedom: “The freedom of the Press is guaranteed and protected. The creation of an organ of [the] press or of [the] media for political, economical, social, cultural, sports, recreational or scientific information is free” (Constitute Project, “Guinea's Constitution of 2010”).

Guinea-Bissau

Article 51 of Guinea-Bissau’s 1984 Constitution protects the right “to inform, look for information and be informed without any hindering or discrimination” (Constitute Project, “Guinea-Bissau's Constitution of 1984 with Amendments through 1996”).

Guyana

Article 146 of Guyana’s 1980 Constitution protects “freedom to communicate ideas and information without interference and freedom from interference with his correspondence” (National Legislative Bodies, “Constitution of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana”).

Haiti

Article 27 of Haiti’s 1843 Constitution was its first to protect press freedom: “Everyone has the right to express their opinions in any matter, to write, print and publish their thoughts” (Digithèque MJP, “Constituion du 30 décembre 1843”).

Article 28-1 of Haiti’s 1987 Constitution protects press freedom: “Journalists shall freely exercise their profession within the framework of the law. Such exercise may not be subject to any authorization or censorship, except in the case of war” (Constitute Project, “Haiti's Constitution of 1987 with Amendments through 2012”).

Honduras

Article 117 of the 1839 Honduran Constitution first protected press freedom: “It will not be possible to restrict in any case or by any pretext, the freedom of thought, of the word, that of writing, or that of the press” (Bufeterosa, “Constitucion de 1839”). [Translated from Spanish]

Article 72 of the 1982 Honduran Constitution states that “expression of thought shall be free, and be expressed through any means of dissemination, without prior censorship” (Constitute Project, “Honduras's Constitution of 1982 with Amendments through 2013”).

Hungary

Hungary first protected press freedom under Article 61 of its 1949 Constitution: “The Republic of Hungary recognizes and respects the freedom of the press” (OHCHR, “Act XX of 1949”).

Article IX of the 2011 Hungarian Constitution protects press freedom: “Hungary shall recognise and protect the freedom and diversity of the press, and shall ensure the conditions for free dissemination of information necessary for the formation of democratic public opinion” (Constitute Project, “Hungary's Constitution of 2011 with Amendments through 2013”).

Iceland

Iceland’s first press freedom protections came while it was a part of Denmark under Section 77 of the 1849 Danish Constitutional Act (see above).

Today, Freedom of the press is not explicitly protected in Iceland’s 1944 Constitution. However, Article 73’s protections for freedom of expression extend to the press: “Everyone shall be free to express his thoughts, but shall also be liable to answer for them in court. The law may never provide for censorship or other similar limitations to freedom of expression” (Constitute Project, “Iceland's Constitution of 1944 with Amendments through 2013”).

India

India’s 1949 Constitution does not explicitly protect press freedom, but it is conventionally understood that Article 19 protections on freedom of expression legally extend to the press (Gaur 1994, p. 429).

Indonesia

Indonesia’s 1945 Constitution does not formally protect freedom of the press, but does protect freedom of expression (Constitute Project, “Indonesia's Constitution of 1945, Reinstated in 1959, with Amendments through 2002”). Indonesia Law No. 40 in 1999 outlined explicit protections for press freedom: “the freedom of the press is one of the many embodiments of the sovereignty of the people and is the utmost important element in creating a democratic society, nation and state in order to insure the freedom of expressing ideas and opinions as stated in Article 28 of the Indonesian Constitution of 1945” (Human Rights and Peace for Papua, “Indonesian Law No. 40 in 1999 on Press”).

Iran

Freedom of expression and, by extension, freedom of the press was protected under Article 20 of the “Rights of the Persian Nation” section of the 1906 Iranian Constitution: “All publications, except heretical books and matters hurtful to the perspicuous religion [of Islám] are free, and are exempt from the censorship. If, however, anything should be discovered in them contrary to the Press law, the publisher or writer is liable to punishment according to that law. If the writer be known, and be resident in Persia, then the publisher, printer and distributor shall not be liable to prosecution” (Wikisource, “Iran Constitution of 1906”).

Today, Article 24 of the 1979 Iranian Constitution discusses protections for press freedom, with some caveats: “Publications and the press have freedom of expression except when it is detrimental to the fundamental principles of Islam or the rights of the public. The details of this exception will be specified by law” (Constitute Project, “Iran (Islamic Republic of)'s Constitution of 1979 with Amendments through 1989”).

Iraq

Article 12 of Iraq’s 1925 Constitution first protected press freedom: “Freedom of expression of opinion, liberty of publication, of meeting together, and of forming and joining associations is guaranteed to all Iraqis within such limits as may be prescribed by law” (Global Justice Project, “Constitution of the Kingdom of Iraq (1925)”).

Article 38 of Iraq’s 2005 Constitution protects press freedom: “The State shall guarantee in a way that does not violate public order and morality… Freedom of press, printing, advertisement, media and publication” (Constitute Project, “Iraq's Constitution of 2005”).

Republic of Ireland

Article 40 of the 1937 Irish Constitution provides Ireland’s first explicit protections for press freedom: “the State shall endeavour to ensure that organs of public opinion, such as the radio, the press, the cinema, while preserving their rightful liberty of expression, including criticism of Government policy, shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State” (Constitute Project, “Ireland's Constitution of 1937 with Amendments through 2012”).

Israel

Israel has no formal protections on freedom of the press in their Basic Law and according to Freedom House, “the Knesset consistently refuses to pass legislation that would incorporate it into the Basic Laws.” However, the Israeli Supreme Court has “affirmed that freedom of expression is an essential component of human dignity” and has issued rulings protecting press freedom as a foundational principle of Israel’s Declaration of Independence (Freedom House, “Freedom of the Press 2017 – Israel”).

Italy

Article 21 of Italy’s 1948 Constitution protects press freedom: “Anyone has the right to freely express their thoughts in speech, writing, or any other form of communication. The press may not be subjected to any authorisation or censorship” (Constitute Project, “Italy's Constitution of 1947 with Amendments through 2012”).

Ivory Coast

Ivory Coast’s 1960 Constitution described the facilitation of telecommunication as fundamental, but did not explicitly mention freedom of the press (Présidence de la République de Côte d’Ivoire, “Constitution 1ère Republique”). [Translated from French]

Today, Ivory Coast’s 2016 Constitution contains no explicit mention of freedom of the press, but Article 19 protects the “right to express and disseminate their ideas freely” under their protections of freedom of expression (Constitute Project, “Côte d'Ivoire's Constitution of 2016”).

Jamaica

Article 13 of Jamaica’s 1962 Constitution protects press freedom: “The rights and freedoms referred to in subsection (2) are as follows… the right to seek, receive, distribute or disseminate information, opinions and ideas through any media” (Constitute Project, “Jamaica's Constitution of 1962 with Amendments through 2015”).

Japan

Japan’s 1889 Meiji Constitution protected press freedom under Article 29: “Japanese subjects shall within the limits of the law, enjoy the liberty of speech, writing, publication, public meeting and association” (Constitute Project, “Japan's Constitution of 1889”).

Today, Article 21 of Japan’s 1947 Constitution protects press freedom: “Freedom of assembly and association as well as speech, press and all other forms of expression are guaranteed. No censorship shall be maintained, nor shall the secrecy of any means of communication be violated” (Prime Minister of Japan and His Cabinet, “The Constitution of Japan”).

Jordan

Article 15 of Jordan’s 1952 Constitution guarantees freedom of the press: “Freedom of the press and publications shall be ensured within the limits of the law” (Refworld, “The Constitution of The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan”).

Kazakhstan

Article 20 of the 1995 Kazakhstan Constitution protects press freedom: “Everyone shall have the right to freely receive and disseminate information by any means not prohibited by law. The list of items constituting state secrets of the Republic of Kazakhstan shall be determined by law” (Legislation Online, “The Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan”).

Kenya

Article 34 of the 2010 Kenyan Constitution guarantees freedom of the media: “Freedom and independence of electronic, print and all other types of media is guaranteed…” (Constitute Project, “Kenya's Constitution of 2010”).

Kiribati

Kiribati’s 1979 Constitution contains no explicit press freedom protections, but Article 12’s freedom of expression protections extend “freedom to receive ideas and information without interference, freedom to communicate ideas and information without interference and freedom from interference with his correspondence” (Constitute Project, “Kiribati's Constitution of 1979 with Amendments through 2013”).

Kuwait

Article 37 of the Kuwait’s 1962 Constitution protects press freedom: “Freedom of the press and of publication is guaranteed, subject to the conditions and stipulations prescribed by Law” (Constitute Project, “Kuwait's Constitution of 1962, Reinstated in 1992”).

Kyrgyzstan

Article 31 of the 1993 Kyrgyzstan Constitution protects the “right to free expression of opinion, freedom of speech and press” (Legislation Online, “Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic”).

Laos

Articles 44 and 45 of the 1991 Laos Constitution do not explicitly protect press freedom, but imply a protection of media production through freedom of expression: “Lao citizens have the right and freedom of speech, press and assembly; and have the right to set up associations and to stage demonstrations which are not contrary to the laws… Lao citizens have the right and freedom to conduct studies in and to apply advanced sciences, techniques and technologies; to create artistic and literary works [;] and to engage in cultural activities which are not contrary to the laws” (Constitute Project, “Lao People's Democratic Republic's Constitution of 1991 with Amendments through 2003”).

Latvia

Article 100 of Latvia’s 1922 Constitution protects press freedom: “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes the right to freely receive, keep and distribute information and to express his or her views. Censorship is prohibited" (Constitute Project, “Latvia’s Constitution of 1992, reinstated in 1991, with Amendments through 2016”).

Lebanon

Article 13 of Lebanon’s 1926 Constitution protects press freedom: “The freedom of opinion, expression through speech and writing, the freedom of the press, the freedom of assembly, and the freedom of association, are all guaranteed within the scope of the law" (Constitute Project, Lebanon’s Constitution of 1926 with Amendments through 2004”).

Lesotho

Article 14 of Lesotho’s 1993 Constitution protects press freedom: “Nothing contained in or done under the authority of any law shall be held to be inconsistent with or in contravention of this section to the extent that the law in question makes provision… for the purpose of… regulating the technical administration or the technical operation of telephony, telegraphy, posts, wireless broadcasting or television" (Constitute Project, “Lesotho’ Constitution of 1993 with Amendments through 2018”).

Liberia

Article 15 of Liberia’s 1847 Constitution first protected press freedom: “The liberty of the press is essential to the security of freedom in a state; it ought not, therefore, to be restrained in this republic…” (Constitution Review Committee, “Constitutional Convention of 1847).

Today, Article 15 of Liberia’s 1986 Constitution protects press freedom: “The right encompasses the right to hold opinions without interference and the right to knowledge. It includes freedom of speech and of the press, academic freedom to receive and impart knowledge and information and the right of libraries to make such knowledge available" (Constitute Project, "Liberia’s Constitution of 1986”).

Libya

Article 23 of Libya’s 1951 Constitution originally protected press freedom: “Freedom of press and of printing shall be guaranteed within the limits of the law" (Constitutionnet, “Libya’s Constitution”).

Today, Article 14 of Libya’s 2011 Constitution protects press freedom: “The State shall guarantee freedom of opinion, individual and collective expression, research, communication, press, media, printing and editing, movement, assembly, demonstration and peaceful sit-in in accordance with the statute" (Constitute Project, Libya’s Constitution of 2011 with Amendments through 2012”).

Liechtenstein

Article 8 of Liechtenstein’s 1826 Constitution first mentioned press freedom: “Freedom of communicating thought through the press shall be regulated by a special law.” (The Constitutions of States at War 1919, p. 376).

Article 40 of Liechtenstein’s 1921 Constitution protects press freedom: “Every person shall be entitled to freely express his opinion and to communicate his ideas by word of mouth or in writing, print or pictures within the limits of the law and morality; no censorship may be exercised except in respect of public performances and exhibitions" (Constitute Project, “Liechtenstein’s Constitution of 1921 with Amendments through 2011”).

Lithuania

Lithuania’s 1918 Constitution “guaranteed freedom of speech and the press, religion and conscience” (Vardys 1979, p. 321).

Today, Article 44 of the 1992 Lithuanian Constitution protects press freedom: “Censorship of mass information shall be prohibited. The State, political parties, political and public organization, and other institutions or persons may not monopolise the mass media" (Constitute Project, “Lithuania’s Constitution of 1992 with Amendments through 2019”).

Luxembourg

Article 24 of Luxembourg’s 1868 Constitution protects freedom of press: “The freedom to manifest one's opinion by speech in all matters, and the freedom of the press are guaranteed, save the repression of offenses committed on the occasion of the exercise of these freedoms. - Censorship may never be established" (Constitute Project, “Luxembourg’s Constitution of 1868 with Amendments through 2009”).

Madagascar

Article 10 of Madagascar’s 2010 Constitution protects press freedom: “The freedoms of opinion and of expression, of communication, of the press, of association, of assembly, of circulation, of conscience and of religion are guaranteed to all and may only be limited by the respect for the freedoms and rights of others, and by the imperative of safeguarding the public order, the national dignity and the security of the State" (Constitute Project, “Madagascar's Constitution of 2010 ”).

Malawi

Article 36 of Malawi’s 1994 Constitution protects press freedom: “The press shall have the right to report and publish freely, within Malawi and abroad, and to be accorded the fullest possible facilities for access to public information" (Constitute Project, “Malawi’s Constitution of 1994 with Amendments through 2017”).

Malaysia

Malaysia’s 1957 Constitution contains no explicit protections on press freedom (Constitute Project, “Malaysia’s Constitution of 1957 with Amendments through 2007”).

Maldives

Article 28 of Maldives’ 2008 Constitution protects press freedom: “Everyone has the right to freedom of the press, and other means of communication, including the right to espouse, disseminate and publish news, information, views and ideas. No person shall be compelled to disclose the source of any information that is espoused, disseminated or published by that person" (Constitute Project, “Maldives’s Constitution of 2008”).

Mali

Article 7 of Mali’s 1992 Constitution protects press freedom: “Freedom of the press shall be recognized and guaranteed. It shall be exercised within conditions determined by law. Equal access for all to the State media shall be assured by an independent organ who's regulations shall be established by an organic law" (Constitute Project, “Mali’s Constitution of 1992”).

Malta

Article 41 of Malta’s 1964 Constitution protects press freedom as a subset of freedom of expression: “Except with his own consent or by way of parental discipline, no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of expression, including freedom to hold opinions without interference, freedom to receive ideas and information without interference, freedom to communicate ideas and information without interference" (Constitute Project, “Malta’s Constitution of 1964 with Amendments through 2016”).

Marshall Islands

Article II, Section 1 of the Marshall Islands’ 1979 Constitution protects press freedom: “Every person has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and belief; to freedom of speech and of the press; to the free exercise of religion; to freedom of peaceful assembly and association; and to petition the government for a redress of grievances" (Constitute Project, “Marshall Islands’ Constitution of 1979 with Amendments through 1995”).

Mauritania

Mauritania’s 1961 Constitution drew from the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and included press freedom protections (Handloff 1987, p. 126).

Today, however, Mauritania’s 1991 Constitution contains no explicit protections on press freedom (Constitute Project, “Mauritania’s Constitution of 1991 with Amendments through 2012”).

Mauritius

Article 12 of Mauritius’s 1968 Constitution protects press freedom: “Nothing contained in or done under the authority of any law shall be held to be inconsistent with or in contravention of this section to the extent that the law in question makes provision…for the purpose of…regulating the technical administration or the technical operation of telephony, telegraphy, posts, wireless broadcasting, television, public exhibitions or public entertainments" (Constitute Project, “Mauritius’ Constitution of 1968 with Amendments through 2016”).

Mexico

Article 50 and 171 of Mexico’s 1824 Constitution protected press freedom:

Article 50: “The exclusive faculties of the general Congress are the following… protect and regulate the political liberty of the press.”

Article 171: “The Articles of this Constitution and the Constitutional Act which establishes the Liberty and Independence of the Mexican Nation, its Religion, form of Government, Liberty of the Press, and division of the Supreme Powers of the Federation, and of the States, can never be reformed" (Sons of Dewitt Colony, “The Constitution of the Mexican United States”).

Today, Article 6 of Mexico’s 1917 Constitution protects press freedom: “Every person shall be entitled to free access to plural and timely information, as well as to search for, receive and distribute information and ideas of any kind, through any means of expression. The State shall guarantee access to information and communication technology, access to the services of radio broadcast, telecommunications and broadband Internet. To that end, the State shall establish effective competition conditions for the provision of such services" (Constitute Project, “Mexico’s Constitution of 1917 with Amendments through 2015”).

Federated States of Micronesia

Micronesia’s 1975 Constitution contains no explicit protections on press freedom. However, Article IV does protect freedom of expression, assembly, association, and petition (UNESCO, “The Constitution of the Federated States of Micronesia”).

Moldova

Article 32 of Moldova’s 1994 Constitution protects press freedom as an element of freedom of expression: “Every citizen shall be guaranteed the freedom of thought and opinion, as well as the freedom of expression in public by way of word, image or any other means possible” (Președinția Republicii Moldova, “Titlul II. Drepturile, libertățile și îndatoririle fundamentale”). [Translated from Romanian]

Monaco

Monaco’s earliest protections of press freedom began with the adoption of the 1848 Constitution (Ferrari 2019, p. 33).

Today, Article 23 of Monaco’s 1962 Constitution protects freedom of expression, but also includes press freedom protections: “ Freedom of religion and of public worship, and freedom to express one’s opinions in all matters, is guaranteed, subject to the right to prosecute any offences committed in the exercise of the said freedoms" Constitute Project, “Monaco’s Constitution of 1962 with Amendments through 2002”).

Mongolia

Article 16 of Mongolia’s 1992 Constitution protects press freedom: “Freedom of thought, opinion and expression, speech, press, and peaceful assembly. The rules of procedures for conduct of demonstrations and public meetings shall be determined by law" (Constitute Project, “Mongolia’s Constitution of 1992 with Amendments through 2001”).

Earlier iterations of the Mongolian Constitution, with the earliest ratified in 1924, included protections on freedom of expression that included freedom of the press (Nordby 1988, p. 80).

Montenegro

As a former part of Yugoslavia, freedom of the press was protected in Montenegro under Article 36 of the Yugoslavian Constitution: “Freedom of the press and other forms of public information shall be guaranteed. Citizens shall have the right to express and publish their opinions in the mass media" (National Legislative Bodies, “Constitution of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia”).

Today, Article 49 of Montenegro’s 2007 Constitution protects press freedom: “Freedom of press and other forms of public information shall be guaranteed. The right to establish newspapers and other public information media, without approval, by registration with the competent authority, shall be guaranteed" (Constitute Project, “Montenegro’s Constitution of 2007 with Amendments through 2013”).

Morocco

Article 28 of Morocco’s 2011 Constitution protects press freedom: “The freedom of the press is guaranteed and may not be limited by any form of prior censure" (Constitute Project, “Morocco’s Constitution of 2011”).

Mozambique

Mozambique guaranteed press freedom in Article 74 of its 1990 Constitution: “All citizens shall have the right to freedom of expression and to freedom of the press, as well as the right to information” (World Bank, “The Constitution of the Republic of Mozambique, 1990”).

Today, this clause is found in Article 48 of Mozambique’s 2004 Constitution (Constitute Project, “Mozambique’s Constitution of 2004 with Amendments through 2007”).

Myanmar

The 1947 Constitution of Burma originally protected press freedom as a part of freedom of expression in Chapter I, Section 17: “There shall liberty for the exercise of the following rights subject to law, public order and morality…The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions” (Burma Library, “The Constitution of the Union of Burma, 24 September 1947, Effective 4 January 1948”).

Today, Chapter VIII, Article 354 of Myanmar’s 2008 Constitution protects press freedom: “Every citizen shall be at liberty in the exercise of the following rights…to express and publish freely their convictions and opinions" (Constitute Project, “Myanmar’s Constitution of 2008 with Amendments through 2015”).

Namibia

Article 21 of Namibia’s 1990 Constitution protects press freedom: “All persons shall have the right to…freedom of speech and expression, which shall include freedom of the press and other media" (Constitute Project, “Namibia’s Constitution of 1990 with Amendments through 2014”).

Nauru

Nauru’s 1968 Constitution does not contain explicit protections for press freedom, but does protect freedom of expression (Constitute Project, “Nauru’s Constitution of 1968 with Amendments through 2015”).

Nepal

Part II of Nepal’s 1948 Constitution originally protected press freedom: “Subject to the principles! of public order and morality this Constitution guarantees to the citizens of Nepal freedom of person, freedom of speech, liberty of the press, freedom of assembly and discussion, freedom of worship, complete equality in the eye of the law, cheap and speedy justice, universal free compulsory elementary education, universal and equal suffrage for all adults, security of private property as defined by the laws of the State as at present existing and laws and rules to be made hereunder” (Constitutionnet, “Constitution of Nepal Effective April 1, 1949”).

Today, Article 19 of Nepal’s 2015 Constitution protects press freedom: “There shall be no prior censorship of publications and broadcasting, or information dissemination, or printing of any news item, editorial, article, feature, or other reading material, or the use of audio-visual material by any medium, including electronic publication, broadcasting and printing" (Constitute Project, “ Nepal’s Constitution of 2015 with Amendments through 2016”).

Kingdom of the Netherlands

Article 7 of the 1814 Dutch Constitution protects press freedom: “No one shall require prior permission to publish thoughts or opinions through the press, without prejudice to the responsibility of every person under the law" (Constitute Project, “ Kingdom of the Netherland's Constitution of 1814 with Amendments through 2008”).

New Zealand

Article 14 of New Zealand’s 1852 Constitution protects press freedom under freedom of expression: “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form" (Constitute Project, “New Zealand’s Constitution of 1852 with Amendments through 2014”).

Nicaragua

Article 66 of Nicaragua’s 1987 Constitution protects press freedom: “Nicaraguans have the right to truthful information. This right comprises the freedom to seek, receive and disseminate information and ideas, be they spoken or written, in graphic or by any other chosen procedure" (Constitute Project, “ Nicaragua’s Constitution of 1987 with Amendments through 2005”).

Niger

Article 100 of Niger’s 2010 Constitution protects press freedom: “The Law determines the fundamental principles…of the protection of the freedom of the press and of the access to public information and to administrative documents" (Constitute Project, “Niger’s Constitution of 2010 with Amendments through 2017”).

Nigeria

Article 25 of Nigeria’s 1963 Constitution protected press freedom: “Every person shall be entitled to freedom of expression, including freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference” (Global Citizenship Observatory, “The 1963 Constitution of Nigeria”).

Today, Chapter IV, Article 39 of Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution protects press freedom: “Every person shall be entitled to freedom of expression, including freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference" (Constitute Project, “ Nigeria’s Constitution of 1999 with Amendments through 2011”).

North Korea

Article 13 of the 1948 North Korean Constitution originally protected press freedom: “Citizens of the D.P.R.K. have freedom of speech, the press, association, assembly, mass meetings and demonstration” (The Committee for Human Rights in North Korea, “Constitution of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea”).

Today, Article 67 of North Korea’s 1972 Constitution protects press freedom: “Citizens are guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, demonstration and association" (Constitute Project, “ North Korea’s Constitution of 1972 with Amendments through 1998”).

North Macedonia

Article 16 of North Macedonia’s 1991 Constitution protects press freedom: “The freedom of speech, public address, public information and the establishment of institutions for public information is guaranteed. Free access to information and the freedom of reception and transmission of information are guaranteed" (Constitute Project, “North Macedonia (Republic of)'s Constitution of 1991 with Amendments through 2011”).

Norway

Article 100 of Norway’s 1814 Constitution protects press freedom: “No person may be held liable in law for having imparted or received information, ideas or messages unless this can be justified in relation to the grounds for freedom of expression, which are the seeking of truth, the promotion of democracy and the individual's freedom to form opinions. Such legal liability shall be prescribed by law…Prior censorship and other preventive measures may not be applied unless so required in order to protect children and young persons from the harmful influence of moving pictures. Censorship of letters may only be imposed in institutions" (Constitute Project, “Norway's Constitution of 1814 with Amendments through 2014”).

Oman

Article 31 of Oman’s 1996 Constitution protects press freedom: “The freedom of the press, printing, and publishing is guaranteed according to the terms and conditions prescribed by the Law. Anything that leads to discord, affects the security of State, or prejudices human dignity or rights, is prohibited" (Constitute Project, “ Oman’s Constitution of 1996 with Amendments through 2011”).

Pakistan

Article 19 of Pakistan’s 1973 Constitution protects press freedom: “Every citizen shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression, and there shall be freedom of the press, subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of the glory of Islam or the integrity, security or defence of Pakistan or any part thereof, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, commission of or incitement to an offence" (Constitute Project, “ Pakistan’s Constitution of 1973, reinstated in 2002 with Amendments through 2018”).

Palau

Article IV, Section 2 of Palau’s 1981 Constitution protects press freedom: “The government shall take no action to deny or impair the freedom of expression or press. No bona fide reporter may be required by the government to divulge or be jailed for refusal to divulge information obtained in the course of a professional investigation" (Constitute Project, “Palau’s Constitution of 1981 with Amendments through 1992”).

Panama

Article 37 of Panama’s 1972 Constitution protects press freedom: “Every person may express his/her opinion freely, either orally, in writing or by any other means, without being subject to prior censorship. Legal responsibility (liability) will, however, be incurred when by any of these means, the reputation or honor of persons is assailed, or when social security or public order is attacked" (Constitute Project, “ Panama’s Constitution of 1972 with Amendments through 2004”).

Papua New Guinea

Article 46 of Papua New Guinea’s 1975 Constitution protects press freedom: “Every person has the right to freedom of expression and publication, except to the extent that the exercise of that right is regulated or restricted by a law…‘freedom of expression and publication’ includes… freedom of the press and other mass communications media” (Pacific Islands Legal Information Institute, “Constitution of the Independent State of Papua New Guinea”).

Paraguay

Article 72 of Paraguay’s 1967 Constitution first established protections on press freedom: “Freedom of expression and of information without prior Censorship are inviolable, and no law shall be enacted that limits such freedom or prevents it except in matters connected with the prohibitions contained in the preceding article” (International Foundation for Electoral Systems, “Constitution of the Republic of Paraguay”).

Today, Article 27 of Paraguay’s 1992 Constitution protects press freedom: “The use of the mass communication media is of public interest; in consequence, their functioning may not be closed or suspended… Any discriminatory practice in the provision of supplies to the press, as well as interfering the radio-electrical frequencies and the obstruction, in any way, of the free circulation, distribution, and sale of periodicals, books, magazines, or other publications with a responsible direction or authors are prohibited" (Constitute Project, “ Paraguay’s Constitution of 1992 with Amendments through 2011”).

Peru

Article 3 of Peru’s 1823 Constitution originally protected press freedom (Wikisource, "Political Constitution of the Peruvian Republic of 1823").

Today, Article 2 of Peru’s 1993 Constitution protects press freedom: “To freedom of information, opinion, expression, and dissemination of thought, whether oral, written, or in images, through any medium of social communication, and without previous authorization, censorship, or impediment, under penalty of law" (Constitute Project, “ Peru’s Constitution of 1993 with Amendments through 2021”).

Philippines

The Philippines first protected press freedom under Article 20 of the 1899 Malolos Constitution: Neither shall any Filipino be deprived… Of the right to freely express his ideas or opinions, orally or in writing, through the use of the press or other similar means" (Arellano Law Foundation, "1889 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines").

Today, Article III, Section 4 of the Philippines’ 1987 Constitution protects press freedom: “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances" Constitute Project, “ Philippines’s Constitution of 1987”).

Poland

Title II, Section XVI of the 1815 Polish Constitution originally protected press freedom: “The liberty of the press is guaranteed. The law shall determine the method of restraining its abuses" (Wikisource, "Constitutional Charter of the Kingdom of Poland, In the Year 1815").

Today, Article 14 of Poland’s 1997 Constitution protects press freedom: “The Republic of Poland shall ensure freedom of the press and other means of social communication" (Constitute Project, “ Poland’s Constitution of 1997 with Amendments through 2009”).

Portugal

Articles 7 and 8 of the 1822 Portuguese Constitution originally protected press freedom: “The free communication of thoughts is one of man's most precious rights. All Portuguese may therefore, without prior censorship, express their opinions in any matter, as long as they are responsible for the abuse of this freedom in the cases, and in the form that the law determines… The Courts will appoint a Special Court, to protect the freedom of the press, and to curb the offenses resulting from its abuse, as provided for in art. 177 and 189” (O Portal da História, “CONSTITUIÇÃO PORTUGUESA DE 1822”). [Translated from Portuguese]

Today, Article 37 of Portugal’s 1976 Constitution protects press freedom: “Everyone shall possess the right to freely express and publicise his thoughts in words, images or by any other means, as well as the right to inform others, inform himself and be informed without hindrance or discrimination"(Constitute Project, “Portugal’s Constitution of 1976 with Amendments through 2005”).

Qatar

Article 48 of Qatar’s 2003 Constitution protects press freedom: “Freedom of the press, printing, and publishing is guaranteed according to the law" (Constitute Project, “ Qatar’s Constitution of 2003”).

Romania

Article 30 of Romania’s 1991 Constitution protects press freedom: “The freedom to express ideas, opinions, and beliefs, and the freedom of creation in any form-orally, in writing, through images, by means of sound, or by any other means of public communication-are inviolable…Freedom of the press also includes the freedom to establish publications" (Constitute Project, “ Romania’s Constitution of 1991 with Amendments through 2003”).

Russia

Article 79 of the 1906 Russian Constitution first protected press freedom: “Within the limits fixed by law every one may express his thoughts by word or writing and circulate them by means of the press or otherwise” (Northern Virginia Community College, “Fundamental Laws, 1906”).

Today, Article 29 of Russia’s 1993 Constitution protects press freedom: “Everyone shall have the right to freely look for, receive, transmit, produce and distribute information by any legal way. The list of data comprising state secrets shall be determined by a federal law. The freedom of mass communication shall be guaranteed. Censorship shall be banned" (Constitute Project, “Russia’s Constitution of 1993 with Amendments through 2014”).

Rwanda

Article 21 of Rwanda’s 1962 Constitution originally protected press freedom: “The secrecy of correspondence, postal and telegraphic communications is inviolable” (World Digital Library, “Constitution de la République Rwandaise”). [Translated from French]

Today, Article 38 of Rwanda’s 2003 Constitution protects press freedom: “Freedom of press, of expression and of access to information are recognised and guaranteed by the State" (Constitute Project, “ Rwanda’s Constitution of 2003 with Amendments through 2015”).

Saint Kitts and Nevis

Article 12 of Saint Kitts and Nevis’s 1983 Constitution does not explicitly mention press freedom, but includes press protections in its description of freedom of expression: “freedom to receive ideas and information without interference, freedom to communicate ideas and information without interference (whether the communication is to the public generally or to any person or class of persons) and freedom from interference with his correspondence" (Constitute Project, “Saint Kitts and Nevis’s Constitution of 1983”).

Saint Lucia

Chapter I, Article 9 of Saint Lucia’s 1978 Constitution protects press freedom as a part of freedom of expression: “a person shall not be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of expression, including freedom to hold opinions without interference, freedom to receive ideas and information without interference, freedom to communicate ideas and information without interference (whether the communication be to the public generally or to any person or class of persons) and freedom from interference with his correspondence" (Constitute Project, “Saint Lucia’s Constitution of 1978”).

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

Article 10 of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines’ 1978 Constitution protects press freedom as a part of freedom of expression: “a person shall not be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of expression, including freedom to hold opinions without interference, freedom to receive ideas and information without interference, freedom to communicate ideas and information without interference (whether the communication be to the public generally or to any person or class of persons) and freedom from interference with his correspondence" (Constitute Project, “Saint Vincent and the Grenadines’s Constitution of 1979”).

Samoa

While freedom of the press is not explicitly mentioned in Samoa’s 1962 Constitution, freedom of expression is protected and “freedom of the press is generally respected” according to Freedom House (Freedom House, "Samoa").

San Marino

Article 6 of San Marino’s 1974 Declaration on the Citizens’ Right and Fundamental Principles ensures that “the privacy of any form of communication shall be protected" (WIPO, "Declaration on the Citizens’ Rights and Fundamental Principles of San Marino Constitutional Order").

São Tomé and Príncipe

Article 30 of Sao Tome and Principe’s 1975 Constitution protects press freedom: “Freedom of the press is guaranteed in the Democratic Republic of São Tomé and Príncipe, within the terms of the law. The State guarantees a public service press independent of the interests of economic and political groups" (Constitute Project, “São Tomé and Príncipes’s Constitution of 1975 with Amendments through 2003”).

Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia has no formal protections on press freedom. Article 39 of Saudi Arabia’s 1992 Constitution outlines how the state conducts relations with the press: “Mass media, publication facilities and other means of expression shall function in a manner that is courteous and fair and shall abide by State laws. They shall play their part in educating the masses and boosting national unity. All that may give rise to mischief and discord, or may compromise the security of the State and its public image, or may offend against man's dignity and rights shall be banned. Relevant regulations shall explain how this is to be done" (Constitute Project, “Saudi Arabia’s Constitution of 1992 with Amendments through 2013”).

Senegal

Article 8 of Senegal’s 2001 Constitution protects press freedom: “The Republic of Senegal guarantees to all citizens the fundamental individual freedoms, the economic and social rights as well as the collective rights. These freedoms and rights are notably…the civil and political freedoms: freedom of opinion, freedom of expression, freedom of the press, freedom of association, freedom of assembly, freedom of movement [déplacemnent], [and] freedom of manifestation" (Constitute Project, “ Senegal’s Constitution of 1992 with Amendments through 2013”).

Serbia

The 1935 Serbian Constitution protected freedom of the press, and King Milan IV of Serbia discussed freedom of the press as early as 1875: “Although nominated but a few days ago, the Ministers whom I have assembled around me in these grave circumstances, will submit to you nevertheless some projects of laws tending to improve our national institutions, to wit, a law destined to increase the securities for personal safety, a law for the extension of the liberty of the press, and a law for the extension of communal self-government” (Hertslet 1875, p. 34).

Today, Article 46 of Serbia’s 2006 Constitution protects press freedom: “The freedom of thought and expression shall be guaranteed, as well as the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through speech, writing, art or in some other manner” (International Labour Organization, “Constitution of The Republic of Serbia”).

Seychelles

Seychelles’ 1993 Constitution does not explicitly protect press freedom, but includes protections “to seek, receive and impart ideas and information without interference” as a part of freedom of expression protections (Constitute Project, “Seychelles’s Constitution of 1993 with Amendments through 2017”).

Sierra Leone

Article 25 of Sierra Leone’s 1991 Constitution protects press freedom: “Except with his own consent, no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of expression, and for the purpose of this section the said freedom includes the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference, freedom from interference with his correspondence, freedom to own, establish and operate any medium for the dissemination of information, ideas and opinions, and academic freedom in institutions of learning" (Constitute Project, “Sierra Leone’s Constitution of 1991, reinstated in 1996 with Amendments through 2013”).

Singapore

Singapore’s 1963 Constitution contains no protection for press freedom, but does protect freedom of speech and expression (Constitute Project, “Singapore’s Constitution of 1963 with Amendments through 2016”).

Slovakia

As a part of Czechoslovakia, freedom of the press was protected by Article 113 of the 1920 Czechoslovakian Constitution: “Freedom of the Press as well as the right to assemble peaceably and without arms and to form associations is guaranteed” (Masarykova Univerzita, “The Constitutional charter of the Czechoslovak Republic”).

Today, Article 26 of Slovakia’s 1992 Constitution protects press freedom: “Every person has the right to express his or her opinion in words, writing, print, images and any other means, and also to seek, receive and disseminate ideas and information both nationally and internationally. No approval process shall be required for publication of the press. Radio and television companies may be required to seek permission from the State authorities to set up private businesses. Further details shall be provided by law. Censorship shall be prohibited" (Constitute Project, “Slovakia’s Constitution of 1992 with Amendments through 2017”).

Slovenia

Article 39 of Slovenia’s 1991 Constitution protects press freedom: “Freedom of expression of thought, freedom of speech and public appearance, of the press and other forms of public communication and expression shall be guaranteed" (Constitute Project, “Slovenia’s Constitution of 1991 with Amendments through 2016”).

Solomon Islands

Article 12 of the Solomon Islands’ 1978 Constitution protects press freedom through freedom of expression: “Except with his own consent, no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of expression, and for the purposes of this of section the said freedom includes the freedom to hold opinions without interference, freedom to receive ideas and information without interference, freedom to communicate ideas and information without interference and freedom from interference with his correspondence" (Constitute Project, “Solomon Islands’s Constitution of 1978 with Amendments through 2018”).

Somalia

Somalia’s 1961 Constitution had no explicit mention of freedom of the press, but protected the right for every person “freely to express his own opinion in any manner, subject to any limitations which may be prescribed by law for the purpose of safeguarding morals and public security" (WIPO, "Somali Constitution").

Article 18 of Somalia’s 2012 Constitution protects press freedom: “Freedom of expression includes freedom of speech, and freedom of the media, including all forms of electronic and web-based media" (Constitute Project, “ Somalia’s Constitution of 2012”).

South Africa

South Africa’s Progressive Federal Party pushed to include freedom of the press as a part of a Bill of Rights during the drafting of the 1983 South African Constitution, but it was ultimately rejected by the rest of Parliament (SAMEDIA, “PFP’s lone stand on ‘Rights’”).

Today, Article 16 of South Africa’s 1996 Constitution protects press freedom: “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes…freedom of the press and other media" (Constitute Project, “South Africa’s Constitution of 1996 with Amendments through 2012”).

South Korea

Section 4 of the 1919 Provisional Republic of Korea’s Constitution first protected press freedom: “The citizens of the Korean Republic shall have religious liberty, freedom of speech, freedom of writing and publication, the right to hold public meetings and form social organizations and the full right to choose their dwellings and change their abode" (USC Libraries, "Constitution of the Korean Provisional Government, 1919").

Today, Article 21 of South Korea’s 1948 Constitution protects press freedom: “All citizens shall enjoy freedom of speech and the press, and freedom of assembly and association" (Korea Legislative Research Institute, "CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA").

South Sudan

Article 24 of South Sudan’s 2011 Constitution protects press freedom: “All levels of government shall guarantee the freedom of the press and other media as shall be regulated by law in a democratic society" (Constitute Project, “South Sudan’s Constitution of 2011 with Amendments through 2013”).

Spain

The Spanish Constitution of 1812 protected freedom of the press under Article 131: The powers and duties of the Courts are…to protect the political liberty of the press” (Biblioteca Virtual Miguel de Cervantes, “The Political Constitution of the Spanish Monarchy: Promulgated in Cádiz, the nineteenth day of March").

Today, Section 20 of Spain’s 1978 Constitution protects press freedom: “the right to freely express and spread thoughts, ideas and opinions through words, in writing or by any other means of reproduction" (Constitute Project, “ Spain’s Constitution of 1978 with Amendments through 2011”).

Sri Lanka

Chapter IV of the 1972 Sri Lankan Constitution first protected press freedom: “every citizen shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression, including publication" (Parliament of Sri Lanka, "The Constitution of Sri Lanka (Ceylon)").

Article 14 of Sri Lanka’s 1978 Constitution protects press freedom: “Every citizen is entitled to…the freedom of speech and expression including publication" Constitute Project, “Sri Lanka’s Constitution of 1978 with Amendments through 2015”).

Sudan

Article 49 of Sudan’s 1973 Constitution first protected press freedom: “The press shall be free within the limits of the law, as a means to educate and enlighten the people, and it shall be directed to serve the objectives of the people" (Right to Nonviolence, "The Permanent Constitution of Sudan").

Article 57 of Sudan’s 2019 Constitution protects press freedom: “Every citizen has the unrestricted right to freedom of expression, to receive and publish information and publications, and to access the press, without prejudice to public order, safety and morals in accordance with what is determined by law" (Constitute Project, “Sudan’s Constitution of 2019”).

Suriname

Article 19 of Suriname’s 1987 Constitution protects press freedom: “Everyone has the right to make public his thoughts or feelings and to express his opinion through the printed press or other means of communication, subject to the responsibility of all as set forth in the law" (Constitute Project, “Suriname’s Constitution of 1987 with Amendments through 1992”).

Sweden

Sweden was the first nation to formally protect freedom of the press through the 1766 Freedom of the Press Act: “The freedom of the press is understood to mean the right of every Swedish citizen to publish written matter, without prior hindrance by a public authority or other public body, and not to be prosecuted thereafter on grounds of its content other than before a lawful court, or punished therefor other than because the content contravenes an express provision of law, enacted to preserve public order without suppressing information to the public" (Hirschfeldt 2017, p. 580).

The Freedom of the Press Act is still included in Sweden’s 1974 Constitution, and Article 1 of Chapter 2 extends further protections for press freedom across “sound radio, television and certain similar transmissions, as well as in films, video recordings, sound recordings and other technical recordings" (Constitute Project, “Sweden’s Constitution of 1974 with Amendments through 2012”).

Switzerland

Article 55 of Switzerland’s 1874 Constitution first protected press freedom: “The freedom of the press is guaranteed" (ICL Project, "Switzerland > Constitution 1874").

Today, Article 17 of Switzerland’s 1999 Constitution protects press freedom: “Freedom of the press, radio and television and of other forms of dissemination of features and information by means of public telecommunications is guaranteed" (Constitute Project, “Switzerland’s Constitution of 1999 with Amendments through 2014”).

Syria

Article 17 of Syria’s 1930 Constitution first protected press freedom: “Freedom of the press and printing is guaranteed under the conditions provided for by law" (Wikisource, "Constitution syrienne du 14 mai 1930"). [Translated from French]

Today, Article 43 of Syria’s 2012 Constitution protects press freedom: “The state shall guarantee freedom of the press, printing and publishing, the media and its independence in accordance with the law" (Constitute Project, “Syria’s Constitution of 2012”).

Tajikistan

Article 30 of Tajikistan’s 1994 Constitution protects press freedom: “Everyone is guaranteed freedom of speech, press, [and] the right to use means of mass information" (Constitute Project, “Tajikistan’s Constitution of 1994 with Amendments through 2016”).

Tanzania

Tanzania’s 1961 Constitution did not explicitly protect press freedom, but did protect freedom of expression (Citizenship Rights Africa, "The Tanganyika Constitution"

Today, Article 18 of Tanzania’s 1977 Constitution protects press freedom as a part of freedom of expression: “Without prejudice to expression the laws of the land, every person has the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and to seek, receive and impart or disseminate information and ideas through any media regardless of national frontiers, and also has the right of freedom from interference with his communications" (Constitute Project, “Tanzania’s Constitution of 1977 with Amendments through 2005”).

Thailand

Article 14 of Thailand’s 1932 Constitution first protected press freedom: “Subject to the provisions of the law, every person enjoys full liberty of person, abode, property, speech, writing, publication, education, public meeting, association and vocation" (Bloomsbury Publishing, "Thailand Constitution 1932").

Section 35 of Thailand’s 2017 Constitution protects press freedom: “A media professional shall have liberty in presenting news or expressing opinions in accordance with professional ethics" (Constitute Project, “Thailand’s Constitution of 2017”).

Togo

Article 12 of Togo’s 1963 Constitution first protected press freedom: “Everyone has the right to express and freely disseminate their opinions through speech, pen and image in compliance with laws and regulations” (World Digital Library, “Constitution de la Republique Togolaise”). [Translated from French]

Today, Article 26 of Togo’s 1992 Constitution protects press freedom: “The freedom of the press is recognized and guaranteed by the State. It is protected by the law" (Constitute Project, “Togo’s Constitution of 1992 with Amendments through 2007”).

Tonga

Article 7 of Tonga’s 1875 Constitution protects press freedom: “It shall be lawful for all people to speak write and print their opinions and no law shall ever be enacted to restrict this liberty. There shall be freedom of speech and of the press for ever but nothing in this clause shall be held to outweigh the law of slander or the laws for the protection of the King and the Royal Family" (Constitute Project, “Tonga’s Constitution of 1875 with Amendments through 2013”).

Trinidad and Tobago

Chapter 1, Part 1 of Trinidad and Tobago’s 1976 Constitution protects press freedom: “It is hereby recognised and declared that in Trinidad and Tobago there have existed and shall continue to exist, without discrimination by reason of race, origin, colour, religion or sex, the following fundamental human rights and freedoms, namely…freedom of the press" (Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, "CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO ACT").

Tunisia

Article 8 of Tunisia’s 1959 Constitution first protected press freedom: “Freedom of opinion, expression, press, publication, assembly and association are guaranteed and exercised according to the terms defined by the law" (Constitute Project, "Tunisia 1959 (rev. 2008)").

Article 31 of Tunisia’s 2014 Constitution protects press freedom: “Freedom of opinion, thought, expression, information and publication shall be guaranteed. These freedoms shall not be subject to prior censorship" (Constitute Project, “Tunisia’s Constitution of 2014”).

Turkey

Article 12 of the Ottoman Constitution of 1876 first protected press freedom in modern-day Turkey: “The press is free, within limits imposed by law" (The Individualisation of War, "The Ottoman Constitution").

Today, Article 26 of Turkey’s 1982 Constitution protects press freedom: “Everyone has the right to express and disseminate his/her thoughts and opinions by speech, in writing or in pictures or through other media, individually or collectively. This freedom includes the liberty of receiving or imparting information or ideas without interference by official authorities. This provision shall not preclude subjecting transmission by radio, television, cinema, or similar means to a system of licensing" (Constitute Project, “Turkey’s Constitution of 1982 with Amendments through 2017”).

Turkmenistan

Article 42 of Turkmenistan’s 1992 Constitution protects press freedom: “Everyone shall have the right to free search of information and to receive and disseminate information in ways not prohibited by law, if it is not a state or other secret protected by law" (Constitute Project, “Turkmenistan’s Constitution of 2008 with Amendments through 2016”).

Tuvalu

Article 24 of Tuvalu’s 1986 Constitution protects press freedom as a part of freedom of expression: “For the purposes of this section, freedom of expression includes… freedom to hold opinions without interference; and freedom to receive ideas and information without interference; and freedom to communicate ideas and information without interference; and freedom from interference with correspondence" (Constitute Project, “Tuvalu’s Constitution of 1986 with Amendments through 2010”).

Uganda

Article 26 of Uganda’s 1962 Constitution alluded to press freedom protection in its protection of freedom of expression, but did not explicitly mention it (World Statesmen, "Uganda Constitutional Instruments").

Today, Article 29 of Uganda’s 1995 Constitution protects press freedom: “Every person shall have the right to…freedom of speech and expression, which shall include freedom of the press and other media" (Constitute Project, “Uganda’s Constitution of 1995 with Amendments through 2017”).

Ukraine

Article 34 of Ukraine’s 1996 Constitution protects press freedom: “Everyone has the right to freely collect, store, use and disseminate information by oral, written or other means of his or her choice" (Refworld, Constitution of Ukraine").

United Arab Emirates

Articles 30 and 31 of the UAE’s 1971 Constitution protect freedom of expression and communication, but do not explicitly protect press freedom: “Freedom to hold opinions and express them orally, in writing or by other means of expression shall be guaranteed within the limits of the law… Freedom of communication by means of the posts, telegraph or other means of communication and their secrecy shall be guaranteed in accordance with the law" (Constitute Project, “Ukraine’s Constitution of 1996 with Amendments through 2016”).

United Kingdom

The United Kingdom has no formal protection of press freedom. The closest legal form of legal recognition of freedom of the press, however, is in Article 10 of the Human Rights Act of 1998, which states “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers" (The National Archives, "Human Rights Act 1998").

United States

Freedom of the press is protected under the First Amendment of the US Constitution: “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" (Constitution Annotated, "First Amendment").

Uruguay

Article 141 of Uruguay’s 1830 Constitution first protected press freedom: “The communication of thoughts by words, private writings, or published by the press in all matters is entirely free, without the need for prior censorship; the author being responsible, and where appropriate the printer, for the abuses they commit, in accordance with the law" (Republica Oriental de Uruguay, "Constitucion de la Republica," 1830). [Translated from Spanish]

Article 29 of Uruguay’s 1967 Constitution protects press freedom: “The communication of thoughts is entirely free in all matters, by words, private writings or published in the press, or by any another form of disclosure, without the need for prior censorship" (Centro de Informacion Oficial, "Constitucion de la Republica," 1967).

Uzbekistan

Article 67 of Uzbekistan’s 1992 Constitution protects press freedom: “The mass media shall be free and act in accordance with law. It shall bear responsibility for trustworthiness of information in a prescribed manner" (Constitute Project, "Uzbekistan's Constitution of 1992 with Amendments through 2011").

Vanuatu

Vanuatu’s 1980 Constitution does not formally protect press freedom, but does protect freedom of expression (Constitute Project, "Vanuatu's Constitution of 1980 with Amendments through 2013"). Observers recognize that, historically, “the government generally respects freedom of the press" (Freedom House, "Vanuatu").

Venezuela

Venezuela first protected press freedom under Article 181 of its 1811 Constitution: “The right of manifesting all ideas by means of the press, shall be free; but any person who may exercise the same, shall be answerable to the laws, if he attacks and disturbs by his opinions, the public tranquility, the belief, Christian morality, or the property, honour and good opinion of any citizen" (Rice University, "Venezuelan Declaration of Independence and Constitution").

Today, Article 57 of Venezuela’s 1999 Constitution protects press freedom: “Everyone has the right to express freely his or her thoughts, ideas or opinions orally, in writing or by any other form of expression, and to use for such purpose any means of communication and diffusion, and no censorship shall be established. Anyone making use of this right assumes full responsibility for everything expressed" (Constitute Project, Venezuela's Constitution of 1999 with Amendments through 2009).

Vietnam

Article 10 of Vietnam’s 1946 Constitution first protected press freedom: “A Vietnamese citizen has the rights to freedoms… of the press" (Bloomsbury, "Vietnam Constitution 1946").

Article 25 of Vietnam’s 1992 Constitution protects press freedom: “The citizen shall enjoy the right to freedom of opinion and speech, freedom of the press, to access to information, to assemble, form associations and hold demonstrations. The practice of these rights shall be provided by the law" (Constitute Project, “Vietnam’s Constitution of 1992 with Amendments through 2013”).

Yemen

Yemen’s 1991 Constitution contains no explicit protections for press freedom but includes the “expression of opinion in speech, writing and photography” under its protections on freedom of expression (Constitute Project, “Yemen's Constitution of 1991 with Amendments through 2001”).

Zambia

Article 20 of Zambia’s 1991 Constitution protects press freedom under freedom of expression: “no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of expression, that is to say, freedom to hold opinions without interference, freedom to receive ideas and information without interference, freedom to impart and communicate ideas and information without interference, whether the communication be to the public generally or to any person or class of persons, and freedom from interference with his correspondence" (Constitute Project, "Zambia's Constitution of 1991 with Amendments through 2016").

This clause first appeared in Article 22 of Zambia’s 1962 Constitution (World Statesmen, "Laws of Zambia: The Constitution").

Zimbabwe

Article 20 of Zimbabwe’s 1980 Constitution first protected press freedom under freedom of expression: “Except with his own consent or by way of parental discipline, no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of expression, that is to say, freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference, and freedom from interference with his correspondence" (Refworld, "Constitution of Zimbabwe, 1980").

Today, Article 61 of Zimbabwe’s 2013 Constitution protects press freedom: “Every person is entitled to freedom of the media, which freedom includes protection of the confidentiality of journalists' sources of information…Broadcasting and other electronic media of communication have freedom of establishment" (Constitute Project, “Zimbabwe's Constitution of 2013”).

When was it generally accepted as a fundamental, legally-protectable right?

The first piece of legislation granting citizens freedom of the press was the Swedish Freedom of the Press Act of 1776. The law allowed for free printing of anything that did not oppose religious faith, did not attack the constitution, and was not otherwise indecent (Nordin 2017, 137). In 1950, the European Convention of Human Rights accepted these same limitations for free press. The Swedish Freedom of the Press Act also gave citizens access to view official state documents. While other European countries had some level of free press, such as the Netherlands, the right to free press was not written into law (Nordin 2017, 138). The right to freedom of the press was accepted more globally with the publication of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, which states, “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers” (United Nations 1948). Still, according to Freedom House, the population of the world with freedom of the press as of 2017 was only thirteen percent, due to limitations imposed by authoritarian regimes and Russian and Chinese regimes seeking to expand their global influence. There were even reports of threats to journalists and limitations to freedom of the press in some democracies (Dunham 2017).

As for the United States, the first guarantee of freedom of the press was written by George Mason in the Virginia Declaration of Rights in 1776 (Bogen 1983, 429). Thomas Jefferson revised Mason’s statement that “all men are born equally free and independent” when he wrote the Declaration of Independence (Vile). Likewise, James Madison later used the Virginia Declaration of Rights to help him in drafting the First Amendment in 1791. Specifically, the line “The Freedom of the Press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained by despotic Governments,” within the Virginia Declaration of Rights shows great similarity to Madison's later proposal for the guarantee of freedom of the press within the Bill of Rights (Bogen 1983, 445). Freedom of the press was accepted as a fundamental right for the United States as a whole with the ratification of the First Amendment in 1791 which 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 to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (U.S. Const. amend. I). Freedom of the press is intertwined with freedom of speech, and both rights are seen as fundamental (Stewart).

What historical forces or events, if any, contributed to a widespread belief in its importance?

Within the thirteen colonies before the American Revolution, the government did not allow free press. Rather, any form of print had to have a government granted license. The government's initial opposition to free press stemmed from the printing of the first American newspaper in Boston in 1690 called, Publick Occurrences, Both Foreign and Domestick. The British government wanted to censor American media for fear of the spread of unfavorable information. Following the disallowance of Publick Occurrences, it was 14 years until another American newspaper was published. The governor of Virginia at the time, Sir William Berkeley, wrote, “I thank God, we have not free schools nor printing; and I hope we shall not have these hundred years. For learning has brought disobedience and heresy and sects into the world; and printing has divulged them and libels the government” (Kahane 1976, 203). Likewise, English law strongly opposed freedom of the press.

A major contribution to the shift to a widespread belief in the importance of freedom of the press in the United States was Cato’s Letters, a series of essays written by John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon between 1720 and 1723 (Trenchard & Gordon 1724). The essays consisted of revolutionary political ideas that largely criticized the British government. Cato viewed human nature as rooted in selfishness, suggesting that political decisions were too often made in the deciders best interest, not necessarily that of the public. For this reason, Cato emphasized the need for human rights and liberty as a check against the power of officials in order to avoid the oppression of some. He emphasized the need to fight against tyranny and corruption. While acknowledging the risks of libel, he endorsed citizen rights to free speech and free press. He believed that all citizens should have the ability to criticize the government accurately. The alternative- restricting freedom of the press, he suggested, would be beneficial only for the corrupt (McDaniel). Cato wrote, “There are some truths not fit to be told...But this doctrine only holds true as to private and personal failings; and it is quite otherwise when the crimes of men come to affect the publick” (Trenchard & Gordon 1724). Cato’s Letters were one of the most familiar essays of time, with people commonly referring to them as a justification and a defense of the rights they deserved, allowing the idea of freedom of the press to gain momentum. The essays were crucial to understanding the importance of and the meaning of the First Amendment, which stemmed from the Virginia Declaration of Rights (Bogen 1983, 446).

Another contributing event was the trial of John Peter Zenger, a printer in New York. In 1733, Zenger printed the New York Weekly Journal. The journal criticized the British royal governor of New York, William S. Cosby, accusing him of rigging elections and other corruption. While Zenger did not write the journal, he was sent to jail and accused of libel, which at the time meant publishing information in opposition to the government. At trial, Zenger was represented by Andrew Hamilton. While Hamilton admitted that Zenger did print the journal, he invoked a new principle, that libel was not punishable if true. Hamilton was able to convince the jury of Zenger’s innocence on the grounds that they could not prove that the content of his publication was false (Kahane 1976, 205). The verdict of the case did not have any serious impact on legal precedent because according to the specifics of the case, the jury ruled that Zenger had not printed the journal, even though Hamilton confessed that much. However, the trial did have the immediate effect of an increase in the amount of political satires printed, specifically those opposed to or critiquing some aspect of the government. This put pressure on less popular officials and increased the relative power of journalists (Olson, 2000).

More broadly, as for the world’s first law guaranteeing freedom of the press in Sweden, Sweden’s intellectual climate and institutional structure allowed for the adoption of ideas that were more radical at the time. Within Sweden, as in Western parts of the world, there was a spread of liberal theory. Liberal theory values the individual as necessary within society and politics. Likewise, liberal theory recognizes the need for change over time in order to advance and improve society. In combination with Sweden’s institutional structure, Sweden could more easily advance new laws (Nordin 2017, 139). At the time, the Diet: four estates including the nobility, the clergy, the burghers, and the peasantry, along with opposing political parties: the Hats and the Caps, ran political discussions and had political power. Around sixty percent of adult males would participate in political decisions. The executive, the Council of the Realm, would act according to the Diet. Sweden saw the greatest citizen participation in politics of any country in Europe. Therefore, unlike in other areas of Europe or the world at the time, citizens were more able to advance their own interests, which resulted in greater liberties pertaining to freedom of the press and free speech (Nordin 2017, 140).

Legal Codification

Is it contained in the US Constitution?

The right to freedom of the press is in the 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” (United States of America 1789 (Rev. 1992) Constitution - Constitute, 1992).

Has it been interpreted as being implicit in the US Constitution?

No, as the right is explicitly stated in the Constitution.

Are there any exceptions in American law to this right?

Given the fuzzy line between freedom of speech and freedom of the press (Freedom of Expression, n.d.), restrictions or exceptions towards speech will impact the press and vice versa. With this is mind, there are two main exceptions in the history of United States law to the right of freedom of the press: the Espionage Act of 1917, and the Sedition Act of 1918.

The Espionage Act of 1917 stated that an individual who shares a document or information that “…could be used to the injury of the United States…shall be fined…or imprisoned…” (18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, Transmitting or Losing Defense Information, n.d.). Similar to the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Espionage Act was proposed in the context of war where President Woodrow Wilson himself pleaded for greater restriction to expression and punishment towards individuals that opposed the United States government in his State of the Union address: “Such creatures of passion, disloyalty, and anarchy must be crushed out” (Handout B, n.d.).

The Espionage Act was put to the test in the case Schenck v. United States (1919). Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer were convicted for violating the act by distributing leaflets that claimed the draft unconstitutional and was akin to “involuntary servitude” (Schenck v. United States, n.d.). The conviction was upheld by the Supreme Court due to Schenck and Baer’s actions providing a “clear and present danger” which the government has the constitutional ability to block (Asp, n.d.).

A similar decision occurred with Debs v. United States (1919). Eugene V. Debs, a popular socialist politician, was sentenced to ten years in prison for condemning the involvement of the United States in the first World War. Debs claimed protection under the First Amendment, but it was not accepted as Debs’ statements were considered, again, a clear and present danger due to them potentially causing resentment towards the draft (Dow, n.d.).

Many were indicted through the Espionage Act, though as time passed, there was controversy over its small scope and high leniency as the first World War continued its drastic impact on the United States. The case that tipped the balance towards a stronger Espionage Act was an indictment to Ves Hall. Hall was a rancher in rural Montana who expressed plans to desert if he were drafted, that Germany would win the war, and that Woodrow Wilson was a corrupt president (Galison, 2010). Hall’s prosecution had broad support from the press and the public. However, Hall was acquitted in the district court as the judge at the time decided that as Hall was in a remote village of 60 people and was miles and miles away from any military presence, and therefore his words did not present any threat to the United States: “…[Hall’s] verbal assault was so distant from its target that there simply was no plausible case to be made for interference with military operations or recruitment” (Ibid.). After Hall’s acquittal, in addition to other acquittals or lenient sentences, desire from American nationalists and supporters from the war increased for an expansion of the Espionage Act to be able to effectively punish and deter disloyalty (Ibid.; Gutfeld, 1968, pg. 169). An amendment was added to the Espionage Act, the Sedition Act of 1918, which rather than merely prohibiting the sharing of a document that could jeopardize American security, instead makes any “disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language” expressions towards the government, the Constitution, the military, or the flag a federal offense (The Espionage and Sedition Acts, 2021).

Eventually, the early 20th century war-era acts were reversed by the 1964 case Brandenburg v. Ohio. In the case, Clarence Brandenburg, a member of the Ku Klux Klan, was having a meeting where he planned a demonstration on Washington, D.C. Brandenburg was convicted to ten years in prison for advocating crime and terrorism (Walker, n.d.). When the case went to the Supreme Court, the Court unanimously decided to overturn Brandenburg’s conviction (Ibid.). The Court stated: “Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action” (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 1969). As a result, this gave political dissenters a greater ability to express their beliefs despite whatever position towards the United States Government they may have.

Even with Brandenburg’s “imminent lawless action” rule did not completely dissolve the Espionage Act, however. As the Cold War became a more prominent conflict in the 20th century, the Espionage Act was used to justify convictions of American citizens who shared sensitive information about the United States’ research into atomic bombs (DeWitt, 2016, pg. 124). Henceforth, citizens who had access to sensitive information would have their speech limited, in order to protect national security, and it is this interpretation of the Espionage Act which the United States government uses to justify convictions towards “whistleblowers”—Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning for example—in the present day (DeWitt, 2016, pg. 127; Greenwald, 2013; Volokh, 2018).

Other exceptions to freedom of the press exist. One example is that of obscenity. In 1973, the case Miller v. California, publisher Marvin Miller was prosecuted for mailing advertisements considered obscene (Hudson, n.d.). The Supreme Court acquitted Miller of the charge and established a three-part test—the Miller test— to decide whether an expression is obscene or not: “Whether the average person…would find the work…appeals to the prurient interest,…whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law,…and whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value” (Marvin MILLER, Appellant, v. State of CALIFORNIA., 1973).

Defamation is another exception, of which the 1964 case New York Times v. Sullivan is an example. The New York Times published an advertisement containing false information about actions taken by opposers of civil rights which included Alabama police, which the Montgomery, Alabama city commissioner, L.B. Sullivan, then responded by filing suit, claiming that the advertisement harmed his reputation and was libelous (Wermiel, n.d.). The Supreme Court reversed the motions of the previous courts that defended Sullivan and Justice William J. Brennan Jr. Opined for the majority: “[We] consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide open…” allowing even for “…vehement, caustic and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials” (Hudson Jr, n.d.). With this defense, however, limits could be enforced if the expression is made with “ ‘actual malice’—that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not” (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 1964).

Lastly, there is a limit as to what extent the press can protect their reporters’ confidentiality, and this was established in the 1972 case Branzburg v. Hayes (Tom McInnis, n.d.). Reporter Paul Branzburg published a story about drug use and the Black Panthers. Branzburg was asked to testify on the illegal activity and Branzburg refused due to the confidentiality he promised his sources. The Supreme Court decided that, as the information was relevant to a criminal investigation, reporters are obligated to testify on that information (Ibid.). The Court states: “The First Amendment does not relieve a newspaper reporter of the obligation that all citizens have to respond to a grand jury subpoena and answer questions relevant to a criminal investigation, and therefore the Amendment does not afford him a constitutional testimonial privilege…” (Branzburg v. Hayes, 1972).

Philosophical Origins

What have religious and philosophical traditions contributed to our understanding of this right?

Kantianism

Immanuel Kant was a German enlightenment philosopher, considered the “central figure in modern philosophy” by historian Michael Rolf, and Kant’s influence can still be felt today through his varied work in epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, aesthetics, among others (Rolf). Kant was also very interested in political philosophy, caring greatly about freedom and liberty. In his seminal essay Answering the Question: What is Enlightenment?, Kant states that enlightenment is when an individual attains the “spirit of rational respect for personal value and for the duty of all men to think for themselves” (Kant, 1991, p. 55). To be enlightened is to no longer believe things because that is what the authority prescribes, rather one is to find the truth by oneself. The final element to achieve enlightenment for Kant is using reason freely with others: “For enlightenment of this kind, all that is needed is freedom[,]…freedom to make public use of one’s reason in all matters” (Ibid.). One’s personal enlightenment is dependent upon the willingness with which the individual shares his judgements with others. Gert Van Eekert in his explanation on Kant’s view of free expression states: “…enlightenment implies that one not only must have the courage, but also must enjoy the freedom to submit one’s opinions to the critique of all others…Intellectual independence of freedom of thought cannot exist without the freedom to think in community with others, and hence without the freedom to speak and write without constraints” (Van Eekert, 2017, p. 132).

It is along these lines that insights towards the right to freedom of the press can readily be made. A free press is a tool which allows for an individual’s own enlightenment, and this occurs through the criticism one opens oneself by publishing a piece of writing, as well as the opportunity to critique the writings and ideas that others make. The effects of a free press is then the enlightenment of society which Kant believes necessarily results from the opening of freedom: “The public use of man’s reason must always be free, and it alone can bring about enlightenment among men,” (Kant, 1991, p. 55).

Interestingly for Kant, a free press is beneficially for a leader because it contains criticisms of them. In his essay On the Common Saying: 'This May Be True in Theory, But It Does Not Apply in Practice' , Kant describes the good ruler has his subjects suffer only by mistake and ignorance, and therefore it is the subject’s duty to express his opinion of the ruler’s actions that way the ruler can correct it. Because of this duty, Kant states: “Thus freedom of the pen is the only safeguard of the rights of the people,” with the caveat of: “although it must not transcend the bounds of respect and devotion toward the existing constitution, which should itself create a liberal attitude of mind among the subjects” (Kant, 1991, p. 85). Kant therefore has a certain idealism as to the interaction between ruler and subject with the freedom of the press. The relationship certainly is a critical one where the subject criticizes the ruler’s actions, though the relationship is not antagonistic. The liberal ruler agrees with the values of the liberal subject, and the ruler uses the subject’s input to rule in a just way. Reciprocally, the subject also has the duty to follow the laws that the ruler bestows: “In every commonwealth, there must be obedience to a generally valid coercive laws within the mechanism of the political constitution” (Ibid., pg. 85).

Millian Utilitarianism

John Stuart Mill’s work of On Liberty (1859) argues against government forcing ideas on the public and argues for the liberty of the press. This would allow for the free reign of ideas and knowledge in society without coercion from the public or their government. This argument allows for inclusion and argues against the censorship of any idea or opinion, no matter the stance or status of the individual. This argument would say that if the power of coercion is exercised, the government or institution is illegitimate and the only way a government can be legitimate is through granting the liberty of the press and of speech.

“The time, it is to be hoped, is gone by, when any defense would be necessary of the ‘liberty of the press’ as one of the securities against corrupt of tyrannical government. No argument, we may suppose, can now be needed, against permitting a legislature or an executive, not identified in [the] interests with the people, to prescribe opinions to them, and determine what doctrines or what arguments they shall be allowed to hear… the government, whether completely responsible to the people or not, will often attempt to control the expression of opinion, except when in doing so it makes itself the organ of the general intolerance of the public…Let us suppose, therefore, that the government is entirely at one with the people, and never thinks of exerting any power of coercion unless in agreement with what it conceives to be their voice. But I deny the right of the people to exercise such coercion, either by themselves, or by their government. The power itself is illegitimate.” (Mill, On Liberty, chapter 2 pp. 20-21).

Mill’s argument is that coercion is the source of illegitimate government and liberty of the press and speech allow for the free flow of opinions, ideas and knowledge that is the basis for political legitimacy. Government interference in this free flow is how government institutions stray from the public and cause illegitimacy. Mill argues for the freedom of the press and has this be the basis for political expression in legitimate governments.

Mill argues that the suppression of opinions by any person is to assume that this person has absolute certainty. This idea robs other humans from forming their own opinions about the first idea and if this suppression takes place, it says that the original idea is false because one person said so, not because the majority of people believe so. This act of suppression robs people of the right to form their own opinion and prevents majority opinions from being formed. Liberty, is then impossible because of this suppression of ideas, making freedom of the press vital to utilitarian ideals and public opinion in general (Mill, On Liberty, chapter 2 pp. 22-24).

Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty and Other Essays. 1859. Oxford World’s Classics, edited with introduction and notes by John Gray, 1991, pp. 20-24.

Pragmatism

Defined broadly, pragmatism is an American philosophical tradition which posits that the truth value of a statement or belief is dependent on its “successful practical consequences” (Talisse, 2008, p. 61). What makes a belief true is not how clearly or equally the belief maps onto reality, rather it is comparing the expected consequences that a belief will give us, and then comparing that expectation with what actually occurs. If the expectation and outcome are the same, that belief is considered to be true.

John Dewey was the pragmatist philosopher which has dealt with politics in the most systematic way. Dewey saw democracy as a way of life and the moral ideal for human beings which led to the good life (Talisse, 2014). Dewey states: “[D]emocracy is not an alternative to other principles of associated life. It is the idea of community of community life itself” (Dewey, 1973, p. 623). Moreover, Dewey believed that the individual is formed through their engagement in the institutions and traditions of their society (Festenstein, 2019). As a result, there is an indebtedness and special connection within the society that creates them. The individual is to then, as a part of his society, hypothesize and test the particular rules of his society (Ibid.). What works is kept and what does not work is changed and adapted, and this dialectic never concludes: “[T]his translation is never finished. The old Adam, the unregenerate element in human nature persists” (Dewey, 1973, p. 627). It’s only through communication between the members of society that this “old Adam” is challenged—a communication where “shared interest in the consequences of interdependent activities may inform desire and effort and thereby direct action” (Ibid.). The result is a society which addresses all issues and problems of human life, including all virtues. Talisse describes this as perfectionism: “Perfectionists hold that it is the job of the state to cultivate among citizens the dispositions, habits, and virtues requisite to human flourishing”, later stating: “the perfectionist project is a task for all modes of human association” (Talisse, 2014).

The right to freedom of the press fits clearly into Deweyan democracy, both because of its inherent sociality, as well as its nature of reasoning or problem solving. The right allows for the issues of the society to be freely expressed and then debated by citizens amongst themselves in a nationwide. This free discourse then determines which particular elements of the society should be taken out, adapted or kept, thus allowing for a constant improvement. Moreover, the expression found in a free press is what specifically allows for the criticisms and improvements of societies to be noticed and realized in the first place: “There can be no public without full publicity in respect to all consequences which concern it…Without freedom of expression, not even methods of social inquiry can be developed” (Dewey, 1973, p. 633-634).

Pragmatist Richard Rorty similarly defended democracy, and by extension the free, though he does so for radically different reasons. In fact, Rorty believed that an attempt to justify democracy and its accompanying rights was a distraction. Democracy and rights are experiments. Particular hypotheses we have towards how we will act and expected consequences that come therefrom: “If the experiment fails, our descendants may learn something important. But they will not learn a philosophical truth, any more than they will learn a religious one. They will simply get some hints about what to watch out for when setting up their next experiment” (Rorty, 1992, p. 270).

Continental Philosophy/Frankfurt School

THE FRANKFURT SCHOOL ON FREEDOM OF THE PRESS

The scholars of the Frankfurt School wrote much more on the mass culture and its effects on the public sphere rather than the freedom of the press. However, they believed that the press was an instrument by which citizens are informed and pushed to think critically, thus make decisions, and should remain so. Some of these scholars lived to witness how the Nazis employed mass culture to instill subordination to fascist culture and society. While in exile in the United States, members of the Frankfurt school came to believe that American ‘popular culture’ was similarly ideological, and that it worked to promote American capitalism's interests. In Dialectic of Enlightenment (1944), Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer, provided a trenchant critique of modern culture, establishing the term ‘culture industry’ to describe mass cultural forms that, in the wake of capitalism, transform the individual from an active thinking individual into an unthinking, passive consumer. Similarly, in 1962, Jürgen Habermas published Structural Transformation of The Public Sphere an Inquiry Into A Category Of Bourgeois Society, his critical investigation and analysis of the public sphere in civil society.

Jurgen Habermas expanded on Adorno and Horkheimer's ‘culture industry’ analysis. In providing historical context for the culture industry's triumph, Habermas emphasized how bourgeois society in the late 18th and 19th centuries was marked by the emergence of a “[public] sphere between civil society and the state, in which critical public discussion of matters of general interest was institutionally guaranteed”, and which mediated between public and private interests (Habermas, 1989, p.11). Individuals and groups could finally shape public opinion, giving direct expression to their needs and interests while influencing political practice. The bourgeois public sphere made it possible to form a realm of public opinion that opposed state power and the powerful interests that were coming to shape bourgeois society.

Habermas was fascinated by the transition from opinion to public opinion, as well as the latter’s socio-structural change. The rise of the mass press, according to him, was founded on the commercialization of the people’s engagement in the public sphere. As a result, much of the original political nature of this ‘extended public sphere’ was lost in favor of commercialism and entertainment (Habermas, 1989, p. 169). This trend may be seen in the press, which is the most important entity of the public sphere: Habermas diagnoses the merging of the formerly distinct domains of journalism and literature, as well as a blurring produced by the mass media’s response to the rise of a consumerist culture. He argued that “Editorial opinions recede behind information from press agencies and reports from correspondents; critical debate disappears behind the veil of internal decisions concerning the selection and presentation of the material.” (Habermas, 1989, p.169)

The introduction of electronic mass media into the public sphere exacerbated the situation. The news is made to resemble a story from its own structure down to stylistic detail, thus the boundary between truth and fiction is increasingly being discarded (Habermas, 1989, p.170). However, while they have a greater influence than print media, their format effectively limits interaction and deprives the public of the opportunity to disagree and think critically, leading Habermas to the conclusion that “The world fashioned by the mass media is a public sphere in appearance only”, at the same time “the integrity of the private sphere which they promise to their consumers is also an illusion.” (Habermas, 1989, p.171). Adorno and Horkheimer agree with Habermas on this point, for them, “Movies and radio need no longer pretend to be art. The truth that they are just business is made into an ideology in order to justify the rubbish they deliberately produce” (Dialectic of Enlightenment, 1944, p.121, para.1)

Habermas notes the contradiction between “the liberal public sphere’s constitutive catalogue of ‘basic rights of man’ and their de facto restriction to a certain class of men” (Habermas, 1989, p.11). The public sphere's character is becoming progressively limited; the media serve as tools of establishing and controlling consensus and promoting capitalist culture rather than fulfilling their original purpose as organs of public discussion. In favor of a staged performance, publicity loses its critical role, ideas are transmuted into symbols to which one cannot react by debating but only by identifying with. Unlike the coffee houses, Habermas pointed, “[they] were considered seedbeds of political unrest: Men have assumed to themselves a liberty […] to censure and defame the proceedings of the State” (Habermas, 1989, p.59). Throughout Structural Transformation, Habermas maintained that the mass media have evolved into monopolistic capitalist institutions. Their role in public debate has evolved from disseminating trustworthy information to shaping public opinion. To counter these developments and as a condition for a pluralist democratic debate in an open society that is not entirely dominated by the mass media. Habermas emphasized the importance of a vital and functioning public sphere, a sphere of critical publicity distinct from the state and the economy, consisting of a broad range of organizations that represent public opinion and interest groups.

From this, it is obvious that Habermas, Horkheimer and Adorno advocated for freedom of the press and freedom of speech, a press that is free from the monopolistic capitalist corporations and the influence of the state. One that informed citizens and left them to criticize freely. Habermas argued that “the press was systematically made to serve the interests of the state administration” (Habermas, 1989, p.22). At the same time, Habermas also argued that the elimination of censorship in England in the years of 1694 and 1695, gave some liberty to the press, even by a slight margin. “The elimination of the institution of censorship marked a new stage in the development of the public sphere” He stated, “It made the influx of rational-critical arguments into the press possible and allowed the latter to evolve into an instrument with whose aid political decisions could be brought before the new forum of the public” (Habermas, 1989, p.58). In Between Facts and Norms, Habermas stated clearly and explicitly that “Freedom of the press, radio, and television, as well as the right to engage in these areas, safeguards the media infrastructure of public communication; such liberties are thereby supposed to preserve an openness for competing opinions and a representative diversity of voices.” (Habermas, 1996, p.368, line.9)

Nevertheless, in comparison to the emerging media of the twentieth century, like film, radio, and television, the degree of economic concentration and technological coordination in the newspaper business appeared to be modest. Indeed, the funds for the media of the twentieth century appeared to be massive, and their propagandist power so intimidating, that in certain countries, capitalist or not, the development of these media was controlled by the government from the outset.

References:

Adorno, T. W., & Horkheimer, M. (1944). Dialectic of enlightenment . Verso.

Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public Sphere an inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. MIT Press.

Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: *contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. MIT Press.

Feminist Thought

Freedom of the press is an issue proving to be more relevant in the modern era as the media influences the public and changes the way people make decisions within their life. It is for this reason that feminist theorists have briefly addressed this right as they recognize the power the press has for the feminist movement and the advancement of women's rights legally and socially. The notion of freedom of press is addressed by Betty Friedan and briefly Martha Nussbaum to explain the role the media plays when it comes to women achieving their rights and equality within society. When it comes to certain rights like freedom of press, the feminists are somewhat unclear about their stance on the issue although inferences can be made based on the implicit arguments made throughout their works.

The notion of freedom of press is interesting according to the feminist perspective because of the unclear answer they have on whether this right should exist within society. Specifically, when talking about the press, Friedan noticed that “At the first press conferences after the law went into effect, the administrator in charge of enforcing it joked about the ban on sex discrimination. ‘It will give men equal opportunity to be Playboy bunnies,’ he said” (Friedan 1973, 368). Friedan points out the problems with the media and journalism in the country to help demonstrate the power men have in most institutions in America. She notes that journalism within a nation is important and should be allowed to do as they please so long as they put the right information forward. Despite being her expectation for the media, her example of how journalism is conducted shows that society’s intention is not towards the female empowerment agenda and therefore makes it hard to make a clear statement on freedom of the press. Like the other institutions Friedan discusses, the press is riddled with oppressive people who again will not use their power to help women. As Friedan notes above, the media had the chance to help encourage the ban on sex discrimination, but instead made a joke out of it and therefore discrediting the ban that could help enforce legal equality for women. Had the media approved of the ban, then it would have been received batter by society and may have even helped create more support for women and their efforts towards equality. Furthermore, Friedan notes “In Washington I found a seething underground of women in the government, the press, and the labor unions who felt powerless to stop the sabotage of this law that was supposed to break through the sex discrimination that pervaded every industry and profession, every factory, school, and office. Some of these women felt that I, as a now known writer, could get the public’s ear” (Friedan 1973, 369). Friedan notes the blatant discrimination women face in the government and the way that they are given the low jobs that are necessary for society to work the way it does, but she also notices that these women wish to be given the proper recognition they deserve. It is for this reason that Friedan would claim that there should be a freedom of press that conveys the right and appropriate message to the public about the state that women are in. It is this underground network of women in government that get cast aside by the men in society and Friedan believes that it should be the press to rediscover and report on the work that these women do in every single organization. Friedan recognizes the power the press must tell the stories of these women and their efforts to help society while not being given the recognition they deserve. Friedan believes that if the press can report about the discrimination and the problems women face and therefore challenge society into changing their views on women, then maybe there will be a possibility for change.

It is from the brief descriptions of instances from which one can derive an answer about whether freedom of press should exist within society. Friedan writes noticeably that “In fact, the media’s, political muckrakers’, and even feminists’ obsession with such charges, which originated as an expression of women’s new empowerment, now begins to seem almost diversionary” (Friedan 1973, 7). On the other end of her discussion of the media is the harm that the media can cause for women if it does not stay on the message that is trying to be conveyed. She notes that media and the press today might distract the public from the true message at hand and pull away from achieving social justice because society might focus on the details that are not that important or necessary. In other words, she understands that people contort the facts to achieve their own intentions which might also cause problems because again it takes away from the goals and the intentions of reporting about women’s issues. In addition, speaking to rights in general, Nussbaum notes that “Thinking of this problem, then, we can insist that universal norms of religious toleration, freedom of association, and the other liberties are essential in order to prevent illiberal subgroups from threatening legitimate forms of pluralism” (Nussbaum 2000, 52). Although the freedom of press is not specifically referenced by Nussbaum, it still follows the idea that feminist theorists follow the other liberties enshrined in society leaving the space for the possibility of freedom of press despite the unclear conclusion from the feminist perspective. Specifically, it is Nussbaum’s support of pluralism that supports the notion of freedom of press since allowing people to share and report on what they like adds to the notion of being plural with one’s opinions and what they share. To the feminist perspective, any right or liberty exists, it is just about how the right or liberty is used and encouraged to either help women or reinforce the patriarchy.

What is most interesting about the feminist political theory is the way that the rights people have only retain as much importance as society has assigned to it. In other words. Feminist theorists are not so much in political commentary, despite criticizing it, but have interests in the way society functions and therefore equate societal institutions and political ones. When it came to freedom of the press, then if it was mentioned, it was in terms of the way society has implemented it and how it affects women of the modern era and therefore why there is no explicit conclusion made about freedom of the press.

Friedan, Betty. The Feminine Mystique. Dell Publishing Company INC. 1973

Nussbaum, Martha C. 2000. Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach. Cambridge University Press

Postmodernism

With the various applications of postmodernism--architectural, aesthetic, literary, and many others—central to its (varied) perspective on the right to freedom of the press is its philosophical and theoretical insistence on, as Jean-Francois Lyotard stated in The Postmodern Condition, the “incredulity toward metanarratives” (Lyotard, 1984, p. xxiv). Such metanarratives are complete explanations of ourselves and reality which were historically offered by religions, the sciences, and politics (Woods, 1999, p. 20). Examples include the insistence of the Enlightenment that reason would carry humanity towards greater progress, or Marxism’s analysis that material conditions of people is the driver of historical events. The postmodernist rejects all-encompassing narratives because of the realization that all knowledge is severely limited by the inheritance and context of the individual. The “whole story” is inaccessible to the individual who creates a metanarrative. In his short essay Answering the Question: What is Postmodernism?, Lyotard concludes: “The answer is: Let us wage a war on totality; let us be witnesses to the unpresentable; let us activate the differences and save the honor of the name” (Lyotard, 1984, p. 82). By “the unpresentable”, Lyotard means an expression or subject that is not accounted for under the metanarrative that is currently accepted. Along with the rejection of metanarratives, so too are any objective truth claims thrown out as the assumption that reality can be understood is its own limited, contingent narrative. With these metanarratives out of the way, all that is left are local, micronarratives and, important to the postmodernist, are the micronarratives which explicitly contradict the metanarratives that are accepted.

With this analysis, postmodernism gives two main insights towards the right to freedom of the press—one flattering or supportive to the right, the other critical and deconstructive. The first, supportive, insight is that the right to freedom of the press allows for the dissemination of countless micro or small narratives. The right actively prevents the “violent and tyrannical” metanarratives from imposing their “false universality” (Woods, 1999, p. 21) onto the margins that do not have the same confirming experience. A free press entirely attacks the self-legitimation which these narratives perpetrate.

The second, more cynical insight is that the right to freedom of the press is at least an important mechanism for a metanarrative and at most a metanarrative itself. In Zühtü Arslan’s account of postmodernism’s interpretation of human rights, he claims: “[T]he most important feature of the postmodern discourse which makes impossible a friendly relationship with human rights is its hostility to the concept of the autonomous subject and to the idea of universality” (Arslan, 1999, p. 196). The human subject, with his autonomy and moral importance, is one that was constructed by the contexts and contingencies of the modernists that theorized him. With this, the universalization of this right fails before it even began. Moreover, any attempt by a government to establish such a right, as well as argue for its existence, is merely an attempt at self-legitimization of its own power. The right to freedom of the press is then, counter to the first insight stated above, an attempt to defend the metanarrative already established.

In the end, postmodernism gives two contradictory insights on the right to freedom of the press. One in which the freedom of the press is a tool for the micronarratives of the marginalized to express their points of view which contrast the tyrannical meta narrative, and the other in which the freedom of the press merely another expression of the dominant metanarrative already assumed and taken for granted.

Culture and Politics

Is this right interpreted and exercised in different ways in different countries? Focus on particular countries in which the right is interpreted distinctively

In 2017, Freedom House estimated that only 13% of the world’s population lived in states with free press (Abramowitz, 2017, 8). Thirteen percent is low and creates little incentive for less-free media states to improve media freedoms (Abramowitz, 2017, 16). 45% of the population lived in states with ‘not free’ press, while 42% of the population lived in states with ‘partly free’ press (Abramowitz, 2017, 8). Freedom House defines free press on a spectrum, with free press being an environment that allows the right to seek and distribute information without interruption or censorship. These can take many forms, such as arresting or threatening journalists, being influenced by the government (monetarily or otherwise), or restricting access to news sources (i.e., disabling the internet) (Repucci, 2019). The presence of these elements decreased media in the state and hinders citizens’ ability to get impartial information. In 2017, free states were, generally, the United States of America, Canada, Australia, and Western Europe (Abramowitz, 2017, 14-15). Partially free states were prominent in South America, Southern Africa, Western Africa, Oceania, Central America, and Central and Eastern Europe, with the additions of India and Mongolia (Abramowitz, 2017, 14-15). Not free states were common in Eastern Africa and Asia (Abramowitz, 2017, 14-15). Freedom of expression is called for and agreed upon in many international conventions: the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) Article 10, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 19, American Convention on Human Rights Article 13, and the African Charter of Human Rights Article 9 (ARTICLE 19, 2004, 2). The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights explicitly calls out freedom of the press (ARTICLE 19, 2004, 2; Stier, 2015, 1274). These conventions and declarations pave the way for freedom of the press in many states, though it is recognized that freedom of expression may be limited, mostly for the protection of something or someone. Exceptions, according to the Human Rights Committee, must be provided by law to safeguard a legitimate interest and must also be necessary to secure this interest (ARTICLE 19, 2004, 2).

Free: Though credited with some of the freest press in the world in 2017, freedom of the press in the United States looked to be declining (Abramowitz, 2017, 1). Factors such as media polarization, mistrust, undermining, and profit-motivated media coupled with changing business models were contributing factors in this decline, though constitutional checks prevented even more decline (Abramowitz, 2017, 1). Additionally, recent presidents’ actions have trended toward more restrictive of the media (Abramowitz, 2017, 1-2). Despite the Freedom Act of 2015, media monitoring is prominent in the United States, as well as other free media states such as Canada, Britain, Germany, and France, and becomes more prominent with less free media (Abramowitz, 2017, 16).

Partly Free: In partly free media states, generally, media is not explicitly restricted or censored, but actions taken by the government have demonstrated restrictions. In Hungary, pro-government media was monetarily rewarded by Hungary’s government was only selling stories to specific media outlets (Abramowitz, 2017, 6; Banks, 2020). These actions “unfairly starved independent media channels” while publicly funding channels that were politically advantageous to the government (Banks, 2020). This practice began after Hungary adopted a new constitution in 2011 and the incident was taken up for investigation in accordance with the ECHR in 2020 after multiple complaints (Banks, 2020). Brazil used five journalists’ trials as a warning toward journalists and potential stories rather than explicitly restricting the media (Abramowitz, 2017, 21). The five journalists were taken to court for 50 counts exposing the high earnings of judiciary members but placed the trials all over the country (Abramowitz, 2017, 21). This action imposed a large monetary and temporal cost on the journalists, causing journalists to think twice about a story before publishing.

Not Free: The ten states with the least amount of press freedom are North Korea, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Crimea, Eritrea, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Azerbaijan, Iran, and Syria (Abramowitz, 2017, 9). States such as these have restrictive media guidelines, such as media monitoring or elimination. In many states, from Ethiopia to Zimbabwe to Turkey, media has been shut down at crucial political moments such as elections or protests (Abramowitz, 2017, 5, 9, 20). Turkey is a state with constitutional protection of media, though it has laws that contradict this protection and criminalize reporting on some topics (Whitten-Woodring, 2009, 599). In Egypt, the military influences the media, preventing private, independent media (Abramowitz, 2017, 17). In Syria, many journalists are exiled, and many surrounding states make it difficult for them to continue their work (Abramowitz, 2017, 4). In Venezuela, some actions against the media have consisted of preventing international journalists from covering a planned protest and reacting with violence when some chose to cover it anyway (Abramowitz, 2017, 13). Russia and China are restrictive of their press with both censorship and market influence, but they take advantage of the freedoms in the United States and France to try to influence perceptions in these areas for their state’s political gain (Repucci & Slipowitz, 2021; Stier, 2015, 1275). Russia takes similar actions with its Russian-speaking neighbors, especially Ukraine, for similar reasons, and has begun to try to influence the EU as well (Abramowitz, 2017, 9). China is also restrictive due to its very strict penalties and monitoring for criticism, while also preventing its people from giving information to outside sources (Abramowitz, 2017, 16).

Exceptions

Exceptions to freedom of the press vary between states. Pew Research Center found that Americans are most likely to accept all types of free speech and people in most states are content with protecting speech against the government under freedom of expression, even if it may cause instability (Poushter & Givens, 2015). However, this acceptance varies by region; there is over 90% support for this idea in North American and Europe, while there is less support, around 70% in the Middle East, Asia, the Pacific, and Africa (Wike & Simmons, 2015). Exceptions begin to appear beyond these boundaries (Wike & Simmons, 2015). For instance, support for being able to say offensive words to minorities or about religious beliefs is below 50% in all regions of the world surveyed except for the United States and Canada (Wike & Simmons). Exceptions against freedom of the press with the most support are comments that are sexually explicit or call for violent protests. Each of these types has less than 40% support to be a protected form of speech (Wike & Simmons, 2015). Defamation: Most common in media is defamation law, in which strictness varies between states based on the written laws, strictness of implementation, burden of proof, and punishment (Botsford). Internationally, defamation’s burden of proof is typically just the intent to make the statement, not that it was made in bad faith (Botsford). In most places, defamation is a criminal offense, though there are some advocates for a change toward a civil offense (Botsford). Defamation charges are somewhat common with just over half of EU states convicting a journalist of defamation between 2010 and 2015, though imprisonment was rare, and some states have such laws but do not enforce them (Botsford).

Investigation for defamation can be very disruptive due to the seizure of personal and professional assets, preventing further journalism at the time (Botsford). Libel and insult charges against Russian Mikhail Afanasyev resulting from a piece he authored were quite disruptive to the media in the region (Botsford; Committee to Protect Journalists, 2013). In the piece, Afanasyev claimed that Alexander Zlotnikov, who had testified to a court that Afanasyev had attempted to record a police arrest and was obstructive while doing so, was lying and immoral, among other things (Committee to Protect Journalists, 2013). A defamation claim was immediately filed against Afanasyev, and a four-month investigation commenced (Committee to Protect Journalists, 2013). Despite his eventual acquittal, the Russian investigation into Mikhail Afanasyev ruined media in his region of Siberia, as he was the only independent source (Botsford). This instance was not the first time he was targeted for his work at the Novy Fokus (Committee to Protect Journalists, 2013). Turkey also strictly implements defamation law, so that it not only is affecting journalists but those in other professions as well (Botsford). Italy, a partly free media state, routinely uses these laws and imprisons journalists for libel – the only EU state to do so (Botsford). On the other hand, Ireland and the United Kingdom, free media states, have repealed their libel laws, and South Africa, a partly free media state, has taken steps to eliminate the law as well (Botsford).

References

Abramowitz, M. (2017, Apr.). Freedom of the press 2017. Freedom House. https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/2020-02/FOTP_2017_booklet_FINAL_April28_1.pdf ARTICLE 19. (2004, Feb.). Briefing note on international and comparative defamation standards. https://www.article19.org/data/files/pdfs/analysis/defamation-standards.pdf Banks, M. (2020, Oct. 26). EU investigating whether Hungarian state aid spending is undermining media freedom. https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/news/article/eu-investigating-whether-hungarian-state-aid-spending-is-undermining-media-freedom Botsford, P. (n.d.). Word crimes – defamation and freedom of expression. International Bar Association. https://www.ibanet.org/article/9E40E124-20BB-4533-A919-C7B5345F34C4 Committee to Protect Journalists. (2013, Apr. 15). Online journalist in Siberia faces defamation charges. https://cpj.org/2013/04/online-journalist-in-siberia-faces-defamation-char/ Poushter, J. & Givens, G. (2015, Nov. 18). Where the world sees limits to free speech. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/18/where-the-world-sees-limits-to-free-speech/ Repucci, S. (2019). Freedom and the media 2019. Freedom House. https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-and-media/2019/media-freedom-downward-spiral. Repucci, S. & Slipowitz, A. (2021). Freedom in the world 2021. Freedom House. https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2021/democracy-under-siege Stier, S. (2015). Democracy, autocracy and the news: the impact of regime type on media freedom. Democratization, 22(7), 1273-1295. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2014.964643 Whitten-Woodring, J. (2009). Watchdog or lapdog? Media freedom, regime type, and government respect for human rights. International Studies Quarterly 53, 595-625. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2478.2009.00548.x Wike, R. & Simmons, K. (2015, Nov. 18). 2. The boundaries of free speech and a free press. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2015/11/18/2-the-boundaries-of-free-speech-and-a-free-press/

Is this right exercised in different ways depending on the political governance regime in place (democracy, autocracy, hybrid regime)?

Freedom House called freedom of the press “a cornerstone of global democracy” and others have deemed it crucial (Abramowitz, 2017, 2; Whitten-Woodring, 2009, 595). But does that mean regime affects how this right is exercised? Regime affects the institutions and framework around the media and freedom of the press (Stier, 2015, 1273). Democracy, government legitimacy, and free press are generally connected as there are easier ways to criticize, advocate for change, and hold leaders accountable (Whitten-Woodring, 2009, 596). Research backs this up. In a study of states from 1948-1995, 82% of democracies had free press and 88% of autocracies had controlled press; The correlation between free or controlled media and regime type is 0.74, a moderately strong score (Whitten-Woodring, 2009, 602, 619). A 1993-2010 study found a correlation between these variables as well (Stier, 2015, 1273). Most argue that this is due to the increased legitimacy, transparency, and accountability – all things necessary in a healthy democracy. There were notable exceptions in these trends: Mexico, Uganda, and Turkey.

Democracies

Turkey, a multi-party democracy for almost 70 years, ranked highly on Freedom House’s democracy scale from 1993-2004, has heavily censored media since a 2016 coup attempt (Repucci, 2019). News outlets have closed, the internet has become restrictive and government-censored, and traditional media platforms have become unavailable (Repucci, 2019). There is still local press, but accessibility has declined, requiring the use of workarounds, such as VPNs and social media rather than traditional local news sources, such as newspapers (Repucci, 2019).

In Germany, board members of news outlet ZDF were supportive of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party, but their Editor-in-Chief was not (Stier, 2015, 1277). ZDF is Germany’s national public broadcaster and is “a leading source of information,” providing a comprehensive view of the state (Facts and figures about ZDF, 2021). The board did not renew his contract, likely because he was critical of the government and a talented investigator, leading him to uncover instances that were not politically advantageous for the CDU. This claim that an Editor-in-Chief did not have a contract renewed for holding different political views isn’t great for the free press narrative, especially when nearly half of the council works for the government (Facts and figures 2020, 2020).

Autocracies

Autocracies control media to ensure the survival of the regime. Thus, there are two prevailing media policies in autocratic states with controlled press: prevent discussion regarding the exercise of power and strictly control opposition organizations and efforts (Stier, 2015, 1277). Under these policies, controlled media can also help promote the government’s rule and agenda (Whitten-Woodring, 2009, 601). There are, however, instances of strategic censorship, in which autocracies allow minimal elements of media freedom. These policies have a similar goal as one-party states holding elections – achieving a look of democracy (Stier, 2015, 1278). When this control is relinquished too quickly, it can have unintended consequences. In a well-known instance, Mikhail Gorbachev implemented freer press and expression in the Soviet Union in the late 1980s with his glasnost policy (Stier, 2015, 1279). Under the communist autocracy in place and with significantly fewer media regulations, this new freedom aided a rapid decline within the state as government mismanagement became revealed (Stier, 2015, 1279).

Generally, free press happens accidentally; this was the case in Mexico and Uganda. In the 1980s, Uganda media began asserting independence against the US in a partisan way against the new government, prompting a “media war” (Whitten-Woodring, 2009, 601). In the mid-1980s, the Moseveni government came into power. This government was liked better by the media, but when the new Moseveni government began human rights violations, the media still reported it. Moseveni tried to shut them down, but the media retained their independence (Whitten-Woodring, 2009, 601). Under Mexican autocratic rule in the 1990s, the media began to criticize the government and assert independence (Whitten-Woodring, 2009, 614). This trend accelerated in the late 1990s with more aggressive media tactics, with journalists putting themselves at risk (Whitten-Woodring, 2009, 614). On the other hand, Stier (2015, 1280) acknowledges that long-lasting, autocratic regimes, such as monarchies, have the benefit of being prosperous and well-liked. These characteristics, along with a strong military presence, limit the chance of being overthrown and can lead to more press freedoms (Stier, 2015, 1280). Accordingly, autocratic characteristics that are associated with fewer media freedoms are communism and one-party systems (Stier, 2015, 1281).

References

Abramowitz, M. (2017, Apr.). Freedom of the press 2017. Freedom House. https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/2020-02/FOTP_2017_booklet_FINAL_April28_1.pdf Facts and figures 2020. (2020). ZDF. https://www.zdf.de/zdfunternehmen/factsandfigures-100.html Facts and figures about ZDF (2021, April. 20). ZDF. https://www.zdf.de/zdfunternehmen/factsandfigures-100.html Repucci, S. (2019). Freedom and the media 2019. Freedom House. https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-and-media/2019/media-freedom-downward-spiral. Stier, S. (2015). Democracy, autocracy and the news: the impact of regime type on media freedom. Democratization, 22(7), 1273-1295. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2014.964643 Whitten-Woodring, J. (2009). Watchdog or lapdog? Media freedom, regime type, and government respect for human rights. International Studies Quarterly 53, 595-625. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2478.2009.00548.x ZDF. (2021, Aug. 21). Wikipedia. Retrieved Sept. 7, 2021, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZDF

Conflicts with other Rights

Are there other specific fundamental rights that tend to conflict with this right? Can you identify specific examples of this?

A fundamental right that tends to conflict with freedom of the press is the right to privacy, which includes the protection of reputation. Two common conflicts between freedom of the press and the right to privacy are that between the right to publish and privacy and that between the right of the press to obtain information and the right to privacy. Beginning with the conflict between the right to publish and privacy, the issues concern the disclosure of embarrassing factual information about a person and the publishing of information that falsely displays a person to the public (Emerson 1979, 332). Historically, in cases where privacy law is applicable, the courts have tended to balance the importance of the publication for news purposes with the extent of the invasion of privacy. For instance, if the publication is not thought to be newsworthy or necessary, but most people would view it as offensive, the court would allow a claim to privacy. Although, the same claim to privacy may not stand in a case in which the publication is considered newsworthy. Similarly, in defamation cases, courts consider the extent to which reputation is harmed, and therefore courts may be more likely to protect the reputation of a public figure over that of someone more private (Emerson 1979, 333).

A specific case involving the conflict between the right to publish and privacy is Time Inc. v. Hill which took place in 1967 (Time, Inc. v. Hill 1967). Hill and his family were held hostage in their home in 1952, and upon being released unharmed, they moved homes and requested limited publicity about what took place. Later, a novel came out about a similar situation which was also made into a play. Life magazine published an article about the play suggesting that it was a depiction of what happened to Hill’s family, even though the play reflected various incidents. The family sued for damages on the grounds that Life had knowingly presented false information about the Hill incident. Life suggested that the article was of public interest and was not published with malicious intent. The court determined that the Life article was not intended to be a source of news, but was rather distributed for advertising purposes. Subsequently, the family received compensatory damages (Time, Inc. v. Hill 1967).

Another specific example is Cox Broadcasting Corporation v. Cohn which took place in 1975 (Cox Broadcasting Corporation v. Cohn 1975). Cohn was the father of a seventeen year old girl who had been raped and killed in Georgia. Cox Broadcasting had obtained the girl’s name from public records and broadcasted the name during a news report. According to a Georgia privacy statute, names and identities of rape victims cannot be publicized. The court ultimately decided that the girl’s name was not a matter of public interest, and hence sided with Cohn, that the incident was an invasion of privacy (Cox Broadcasting Corporation v. Cohn 1975). From these two cases, it is clear that at times, the right to privacy can limit the First Amendment right to freedom of the press, especially in cases presenting information in a false light.

The second main conflict is that between the right to privacy and the right to obtain information. The press has a right to obtain information voluntarily from private sources, however, it does not have the right to compel such information. The press is generally restricted by laws against wiretapping, trespass, theft, etc. In terms of receiving information from government sources, the press can claim the constitutional right to know. The right to know is used for the purpose of informing and transmitting information to the public, especially when the government is barring such communication (Emerson 1979, 333). There have however been cases in which the right of the press to obtain information has been limited for privacy concerns. For instance, in Pell v. Procunier journalists were prevented from interviewing prison inmates (Pell v. Procunier 1974). Similar to the conflict between the right to publish and privacy, in many cases involving the right of the press to obtain information, the court attempts to balance the public’s right to know with privacy concerns. In the case of Pell v. Procunier, interviewing the inmates would not have provided the public with important information regarding the conditions of the prisons, and therefore the privacy of the inmates was upheld (Pell v. Procunier 1974).

As of 1996, the Federal Freedom of Information Act was passed which gives public access to many federal records. However, there are nine exemptions to the Act that restrict public access to certain health and medical records, documents for the purpose of law enforcement, trade secrets or classified documents, among others. These exemptions are commonly referred to in right to know cases. Additionally, the Government in Sunshine Act of 1976 ensures that federal agency meetings are open to the public. An exception to this act is made in cases where the meetings contain, “information of a personal nature where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” The phrase, “clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” has been broadly interpreted. Overall, the conflicts surrounding freedom of the press and privacy lack consistent legal procedure (Emerson 1979, 351).

Are there other specific rights that are critical to the exercise of this right? Can you identify specific examples of this?

The first right that is critical to the exercise of freedom of the press is the right to free speech and expression. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers” (United Nations 1948). Without the right to free speech and expression, the press would be very limited. This leads to another right which is critical to the exercise of freedom of the press which is the right to criticize the government. Before the American Revolution, the government did not allow freedom of the press because they were fearful of the spread of unfavorable information. The first American newspaper was published in Boston in 1690 called, Publick Occurrences, Both Foreign and Domestick. The British government banned this publication because it was critical (Kahane 1976, 203). Years later in 1773, Hamilton helped to establish the principle that libel could not be punished unless it was false information. This meant that critiques of the government could be published, so long as that information was true (Kahane 1976, 205). Hence, the ability to criticize the government became recognized as necessary for the realization of freedom of the press.

A similar principle was later upheld within the case of New York Times Company vs. Sullivan in 1964 (New York Times Company v. Sullivan). In 1960, the New York Times printed a newspaper with a civil-rights fundraising editorial advertisement titled, “Heed Their Rising Voices.” The advertisement was opposed to the way Alabama law enforcement had treated Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.. L.B. Sullivan filed a lawsuit against the New York Times on the basis that there were mistakes in the newspaper that called his reputation into question because he was a supervisor of the Alabama local police. Originally, a jury awarded him $500,000 in damages. However, the Supreme Court later reversed this decision and dismissed the damage award. The Court established the “actual malice” test which made it so public officials could only receive damages against libel in cases where the libel was stated “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not” (New York Times Company v. Sullivan). In the case of New York Times Company vs. Sullivan, the publication did not meet the standards of the actual malice test. According to Justice William J. Brennan Jr. and the majority, “debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide-open” (New York Times Company v. Sullivan). The majority implied that mistakes within publication would happen within any democratic society, and that debate and criticism of government affairs would be necessary for a truly free press.

Another right that is critical to the exercise of freedom of the press is the right of the public to receive information. Between 1964 and 1968, the modern conception of freedom of the press changed. Free press began to not only mean the ability to publish as one pleases, but also that citizens have a right to receive information about the government in order to promote democracy. This would act as a check on the power of officials. With this, the extent to which freedom of the press could be protected expanded (Coyle 2017). In 1996, the Federal Freedom of Information Act granted citizens the right to access many federal records. There are exceptions and limitations to this access, such as for privacy concerns, but in general, the right to know is upheld (Emerson 1979, 351).

Is there a perception that this right is above or higher than other fundamental rights, or in general, that it has a particular place in a hierarchy of rights?

The right to freedom of the press is commonly balanced against other rights and concerns, such as the right to privacy/ reputation and national security concerns. Freedom of the press is not inherently viewed to be above or higher than the right to privacy and potential security concerns, but rather the importance of freedom of the press is considered on a case by case basis, in comparison with the degree of other concerns. In the case of the right to privacy, free press can lead to an invasion of privacy in terms of the right of the public and the government to receive information, and can also lead to defamation especially in the case of false press or press being presented in a false light. When privacy law is applicable, historically, the courts try to assess how newsworthy and important the publication or information is for the public. The right to privacy often falls higher in the hierarchy of rights when the publication is not obviously important or newsworthy, whereas when the publication is very important for news purposes, the right to freedom of the press tends to be perceived as above the right to privacy. Additionally, in defamation cases, the degree to which reputation is harmed is considered by the courts. The courts may be more likely to uphold the right to reputation when a public figure is involved, and the cost to reputation is greater (Emerson 1979, 333).

Another important factor is national security concerns; a tricky issue in terms of freedom of the press. There has been disagreement over what necessitates or makes permissible prior restraint on the press due to national security concerns. One example includes the case of New York Times Company vs. United States in 1971 (New York Times Company v. United States). In 1967, Robert McNamara, the Secretary of Defense, conducted a government study about America’s involvement in Vietnam. The work was compiled in 7,000 pages, and only 15 copies were printed. The work revealed that the government had not been transparent with the American people about its engagement with Vietnam. The study was considered classified. Daniel Ellsberg, who had helped with the project, later secretly made more copies of the study and distributed them to New York Times employees who referred to them as “Pentagon Papers.” The Nixon Administration barred further publication of the papers by means of a restraining order due to what they considered national security concerns. The New York Times appealed to the Supreme Court, and the Court ruled that the New York Times could continue to publish the Pentagon Papers. The Court decided that the Nixon Administration did not have enough justification for barring the publication of the Pentagon Papers.

Justices took different stances on the issue at hand, with some believing prior restraint to never be justified and others believing it to be justified in certain circumstances, if a national security threat is clear and serious. These justices referred to the need for a “clear and present danger,” a precedent that established, in the case of Schenck vs. United States in 1919, that the First Amendment does not protect speech which creates a clear and present danger with which Congress is equipped to prevent, (Schenck v. United States). In New York Times Company v. United States, the majority ruled that the threat to national security by publishing the Pentagon Papers was too vague and unclear to impose restrictions on the press (New York Times Company v. United States). In certain circumstances, the Supreme Court has restricted First Amendment rights due to national security concerns. Typically, the Supreme Court attempts to find a balance between allowing freedom of the press and disallowing real security threats.

What specific examples of hierarchies, manifestos, constitutions, or prioritized descriptions of rights cite this right’s high status? Low status? No status at all?

Freedom of the press is extremely entrenched in international law, demonstrating its high status. In 1644, John Milton began the discussion about freedom of the press in response to the British government having to approve each publication before it went to print. Before this time, media wasn’t common, so refuting such regulation didn’t make sense (Cunningham). In 1766, Sweden passed the first known act requiring freedom of the press (Cunningham). It was intended to prevent the Swedish government from having to approve each publication, much like Milton was advocating for in Britain a century earlier (Cunningham). Ten years later, this right appeared in the Virginia Declaration of Rights in 1776 and was later brought by Virginian James Madison to the United States Bill of Rights (Freedom of the press, 2018).

Today, the protection of expression, media, and opinion is seen in conventions and declarations worldwide. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR, 1948) has a wide reach and a broad expression of freedom as it is intended to apply to all people. Article 19 states “everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers” (UDHR, 1948). Although the UDHR is neither a treaty nor legally binding, it has heavily influenced the development of international human rights law (Australian Human Rights Commission). The UN has also signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), a treaty that outlines rights that “derive from the inherent dignity of a person” (1966, Art. 19). Article 19 of the ICCPR (1966) outlines the freedom of expression, explicitly calling out the right to freely “seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.” Article 5 of the UN’s 1965 International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination explicitly expands this right to all people.

Regional supranational organizations have also called out this right explicitly. In 1953, the Council of Europe (which contains more member states than the European Union) adopted the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR). Article 10 of the ECHR (1950) says the right of free expression “shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.” The European Union has also adopted the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (2009), which states in Article 11 “the freedom and pluralism of media shall be respected.” The African Union and Organization of American States (OAS) took similar steps in 1981 and 1969, respectively, with Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights and Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights, also called the Pact of San Jose. These freedoms were reaffirmed in 2001 with a joint statement between the UN, OAS, and Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and again by the OSCE in the 2003 Amsterdam Recommendations.

At a state level, there are two extremes along a spectrum of free expression and press: Egypt and Norway. In Egypt, the 2014 constitution protects freedom of the press, though it is not protected in practice – government implemented censorship, imprisonment of journalists, and closures of media outlets are all prominent (Press freedom in Egypt, 2019). Moreover, since 2015, journalists have been restricted to telling the “official” story rather than the real one (Egypt, 2021). In Norway, there is a yearly report on the freedom of the press and expression, with the main complaints resulting from online government meetings, limiting press access (Norway, 2021). The United States is between these two states, where freedom of the press is a highly respected right from the First Amendment of the Constitution and is fervently protected with limited exceptions usually resulting from Supreme Court decisions. Even so, today media freedom is limited due to distrust of “mainstream” sources and the loss of local news (United States, 2021). Even local government recognizes the importance of this right, demonstrated by the 2019 passage of Queensland, Australia’s Human Rights Act.

References

African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. African Union. June 1, 1981. https://au.int/en/treaties/african-charter-human-and-peoples-rights American Convention on Human Rights. Organization of American States. Nov. 22, 1969. http://www.oas.org/en/sla/dil/inter_american_treaties_A-41_charter_OAS.asp Amsterdam Recommendations. Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. June 14, 2003. https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/4/a/41903.pdf Australian Human Rights Commission. (n.d.) What is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/what-universal-declaration-human-rights Cunningham. (n.d.) Brief history of press freedom, A. Britannica. Retrieved Sept. 3, 2021, from https://www.britannica.com/story/250-years-of-press-freedom Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Dec. 1, 2009. https://fra.europa.eu/en/eu-charter Egypt. (2021). Reporters without Borders. Retrieved Sept. 8, 2021, from https://rsf.org/en/taxonomy/term/156 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Council of Europe. Nov. 4, 1950. https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/convention_eng.pdf Freedom of the press. (2018, Aug. 21). History.com. Retrieved Sept. 3, 2021, from https://www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/freedom-of-the-press Human Rights Act. Queensland Legislative Assembly. Mar. 7, 2019. Retrieved Sept. 3, 2021, from https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/act-2019-005 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). Dec. 21, 1965. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CERD.aspx International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. UNGA. Dec. 16, 1996. https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx Norway. (2021). Reporters without Borders. Retrieved Sept. 8, 2021, from https://rsf.org/en/norway Tahir Institute for Middle East Policy. (2019, May 24). Press freedom in Egypt. https://timep.org/reports-briefings/timep-briefs/timep-brief-press-freedom-in-egypt/ United States. (2021). Reporters without Borders. Retrieved Sept. 8, 2021, from https://rsf.org/en/united-states Universal Declaration on Human Rights. UNGA. Dec. 10, 1948. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights U.S. Constitution. Amendment I. https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript