[LINK] Free speech or freedom of the press?
Jan Whitaker
jwhit at janwhitaker.com
Sun Dec 12 09:35:43 AEDT 2010
"No matter how new the medium, or how irresponsible its publisher, it
is an absolute and fundamental infringement of free speech when a
government tries to gag a media outlet it doesn't like."
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/the-weight-of-the-word-20101211-18tdr.html
I think there is a bit of conflation of the two ideas because of a
misunderstanding. From the US Constitution's First Amendment, first
of ten in the Bill of Rights, the actual language is:
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
<http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#REDRESS>redress of grievances.
Note freedom of speech and 'of the press' are separate phrases. The
cables themselves were written by other people, not Wikileaks, so
it's not Wikileaks' 'speech' that is being curtailed. But the freedom
of the press is being threatened.
An interview with the long dead philosopher John Stuart Mill (
http://www.usconstitution.net/onliberty.html ) on this Amendment is
quite clever, too, and provides insight to the interactions of the concepts.
If you treat the writings that have been exposed (the cables) as
opinions of those who wrote them, they are then input to the public
to form their own opinions of what their government officials are
doing in order to make better decisions (an informed public)
themselves as to who should be given the privilege to govern (not
rule - big difference). The Freedom of the Press is a means to
provide that information to the public. If the public doesn't know
(the government behaves in secret, both in terms of their public
policy and commercial enterprises), the public can't exercise their
rights to choose that government or petition for redress of
grievances. So I'd say the Founding Fathers of the US had it pretty
right when they put these concepts together in the First Amendment.
And since religion was/is a major institution in many countries and
cultures, and was certainly at that time a major consideration of
guiding the perspectives of the people, the writers were essentially
saying: don't take sides, don't pick a dogma, let the debate of ideas
settle the argument and trust the people to do so.
No one ever said the system (as in the Constitution) was perfect, but
it's better than totalitarianism of any shade. And the press, when it
does its job, is critical.
Jan
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
jwhit at janwhitaker.com
blog: http://janwhitaker.com/jansblog/
business: http://www.janwhitaker.com
Our truest response to the irrationality of the world is to paint or
sing or write, for only in such response do we find truth.
~Madeline L'Engle, writer
_ __________________ _
More information about the Link
mailing list