[LINK] Free speech or freedom of the press?

[Jan Whitaker]

"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

_ __________________ _