Constitutional Law. Freedom of the Press. Reporter Has First Amendment Right to Refuse to Appear and Testify before Grand Jury about Confidential Sources and Information. Caldwell v. United States, 434 F. 2d 1081 (9th Cir.), Petition for Cert. Filed, 39 U. S. L. W. 3273 (U. S. Dec. 22, 1970) (No. 1114)

1971 ◽  
Vol 84 (6) ◽  
pp. 1536
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Freedom Of The Press ◽  
Grand Jury ◽  
The Press ◽  
Right To Refuse ◽  
Confidential Sources

scholarly journals Freedom of the Press

Communication ◽  
2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dwight Teeter
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
Electronic Media ◽  
Press Freedom ◽  
Freedom Of The Press ◽  
Free Exercise ◽  
The Press

Freedom of the press refers to the freedom to criticize government without suffering official interference or punishment, before or after publication. “Freedom of the press,” “freedom of speech,” and “freedom of expression” are terms often used together in the United States, with “the press” primarily connoting print and electronic media. This bibliography concentrates on freedom of the press as defined by some major American and English writers and in decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. Because of the advent of electronic media and of the internet and of other “new media” or “social media” during the 20th and early 21st centuries, the term “freedom of the press” is used to cover mediated communication in general. The clearest indicator of press freedom is that opponents of government or of government leaders, laws, or policies can publish effective criticisms without suffering government retaliation in the form of fines, imprisonment, or even death. That definition does not include communications that may break laws of general applicability, such as the law of fraud, nor violation of a contract. It also does not cover extralegal controls such a communicator’s sense of the community’s range of permissible expression, or public pressures (including mob action) against the press in times of crisis. The legal definition of “freedom of the press” in the United States begins with the forty-five words of the First Amendment to the Constitution, adopted 15 December 1791: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof, 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.” The absolute words of prohibition against congressional statutes tampering with speech or press freedom were, however, overridden early in the nation’s history by Congress in 1798, just seven years after the adoption of the First Amendment. Congress then passed the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, which, among other things, made it a crime to criticize the federal government or government leaders. These short-lived enactments, which fueled bitter partisan controversy in the new nation, are discussed in the Historical Context section. Freedom of the press is not static: it rises in times of peace and diminishes in times of war or national crisis, when most needed by society.

scholarly journals Discarding Dariano: The Heckler's Veto and a New School Speech Doctrine

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julien M. Armstrong
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Public Policy ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
New School ◽  
The Press ◽  
Spoken Words

Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy: Vol. 26 : Iss. 2 , Article 4. Of all of the freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights, perhaps none inspire the level of interest and debate among both scholars and laypersons as the freedom of speech. The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America guarantees that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,” and it has long been held that “speech” encompasses not merely spoken words butany conduct which is “sufficiently imbued with elements of communication to fall within the scope of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.”

scholarly journals "Obscene" Literature and Constitutional Law: A Forensic Defense of Freedom of the Press

1912 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 153
Author(s):  
T. Schroeder ◽  
W. J. Chidley
Keyword(s):  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Freedom Of The Press ◽  
The Press

The Dominant American View of Freedoms of Press and Speech, in the Decade Leading Up to Ratification of the Federal Bill of Rights

2020 ◽  
pp. 303-336
Author(s):  
Wendell Bird
Keyword(s):  
First Amendment ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Source Material ◽  
Freedom Of The Press ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
Original Source ◽  
Narrow View ◽  
The Press ◽  
Freedom Of Press ◽  
The World

In the 1780s in America, the advocates of broad understandings of freedom of press and freedom of speech continued to argue, as “Junius Wilkes” did in 1782, that “[i]f a printer is liable to prosecution and restraint, for publishing pieces on public measures, conceived libellous, the liberty of the press is annihilated and ruined. . . . The danger is precisely the same to liberty, in punishing a person after the performance appears to the world, as in preventing its publication in the first instance. The doctrine of libels, is of pernicious consequence to the freedom of the press.” Many other essays in the 1780s showed the dominance of an expansive understanding of freedoms of press and speech, as did the declarations of rights of nine states. That was the context in which the First Amendment was adopted and ratified in 1789–1791. These conclusions about the prevalent and dominant understanding after the mid-1760s are flatly contrary to the narrow view of freedoms of press and speech stated by Blackstone and Mansfield, and restated by the neo-Blackstonians, who claim that the narrow understanding was not only predominant but exclusive through the ratification of the First Amendment and onward until 1798. This book’s conclusions are based on far more original source material than the neo-Blackstonians’ conclusions.

Introduction

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Wendell Bird
Keyword(s):  
First Amendment ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Freedom Of The Press ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
James Madison ◽  
Broad Definition ◽  
The Press ◽  
Narrow Definition ◽  
The Common ◽  
Definition Of

The “father of the Bill of Rights,” James Madison, described the unqualified words protecting freedoms of speech and press as embodying a broad definition rather than a narrow definition of those liberties. Upon offering those provisions, he said that “freedom of the press and rights of conscience . . . are unguarded in the British constitution,” including the common law, and that “every government should be disarmed of powers which trench upon those particular rights.” In Madison’s draft and in the final First Amendment, each clause was worded to modify or to reject the English common law on point in order to provide for far greater protection of individual liberties; no clause was worded with the restrictions that the common law imposed. Was Madison right? Are freedoms of press and speech in the First Amendment broad or narrow protections?

Freedom of the Press

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sam Lebovic
Keyword(s):  
World War I ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Private Information ◽  
Press Freedom ◽  
Freedom Of The Press ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Public Officials ◽  
The Press ◽  
History Of ◽  
Constitutional Right

According to the First Amendment of the US Constitution, Congress is barred from abridging the freedom of the press (“Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press”). In practice, the history of press freedom is far more complicated than this simple constitutional right suggests. Over time, the meaning of the First Amendment has changed greatly. The Supreme Court largely ignored the First Amendment until the 20th century, leaving the scope of press freedom to state courts and legislatures. Since World War I, jurisprudence has greatly expanded the types of publication protected from government interference. The press now has broad rights to publish criticism of public officials, salacious material, private information, national security secrets, and much else. To understand the shifting history of press freedom, however, it is important to understand not only the expansion of formal constitutional rights but also how those rights have been shaped by such factors as economic transformations in the newspaper industry, the evolution of professional standards in the press, and the broader political and cultural relations between politicians and the press.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document