The Communication Law & Ethics Blog is a course project for COMM 4403 Communication Law & Ethics at Lindsey Wilson College (Spring 2020). Its main purpose is to engage students enrolled in the course in reading and reflecting on course-related topics. Relevant contributions from others are welcome. Just keep your comments civil, clean and on point. Comments that fail to comply with these community standards will be deleted.
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
COMM 4403 Phelps 
I believe that the states that did not establish the freedom of press were wanting to have more control over their people. They did not want anything to get in the way of them censoring their people.
I was very shocked to see that so many places allow freedom of press. I did not click on every country or region but I looked at about 15 and all of them had some sort of freedom. Some places even allow their people to hold assemblies and riots without consequence. I also found the wording very intriguing. Some of the laws were stated with very specific terminology but others were much more vague.
LikeLike
Besides the omissions of “freedom of the press” from some early state constitutions, what evidence would support the conclusion that the political leaders of these states had an anti-democratic agenda that included controlling people’s freedoms of the press and of speech? (Note: I am not asking you, or anyone else for that matter, to provide this evidence; I am just interested in knowing what evidence could or should be used to support the claim of fact you have made.)
LikeLike
Why is it shocking “to see that so many places allow freedom of press”? Had you assumed perhaps that this was a uniquely American freedom?
LikeLike
I think that states that did not support these freedoms for their people wished to exercise more control over them, or that there were possible religious beliefs that conflicted with these personal freedoms (ie. [i.e.] Puritans and Quakers). The states had also just seen the influence of the press on altering social belief (ie. [i.e.] Common Sense and the Federalist Papers) and this might have been a fearful concept post war for the new nations and states. I enjoyed that most of the nations around the world linked freedom of speech with freedom of the press and expression. This was valuabe [valuable] to see and to also read about the limitations due to knowing the [l]imitations the United States later placed on the press and free speech through Supreme Court cases (ie. [i.e.] libel and slander). As Molly stated, it was also interesting to see how explicit some of the legislation was in comparison to others.
LikeLike
I think that some of these states did not support these freedoms because they were possibly scared of giving the people this “power[.]“. I also think that some of the states wanted to have more control over their people. When I saw how many countries have freedom of press I was somewhat shocked. It was interesting to see the details that each country had. Some were very short but some countries were very detailed and long. For example, switching between Russia’s law and Iran’s law was a very big difference.
LikeLike
As I was looking into each states [state’s] view on freedom of the press, I did not realize the differences on [in] their views on the same concept. I believe that the states that shared less freedom of the press with their people wanted to keep more control over them.
I agree with Molly that some states were very specific and then others became very vague and were more “loosely” [loose] with the terminology.
LikeLike
After pondering the question, “why would some states want to establish the freedom of the press and some not want to establish this freedom?,” I have come to an idea that perhaps they felt that other rights were more important to the different types of people they had in their state. Every state constitution and bills[bill] of rights, that I have read, has had [?]about religion. This is one of the reasons they left England and their other countries to find religious freedom. So perhaps they felt they needed to declare certain rights such as religion but felt that others were taken for granted and therefore the need to write them down was unnecessary.
Looking at the interactive exercise on, Constitutional Rights, I found it interesting that when you click on the Press (freedom of the press) button it seems as if many countries have this right. However, when I looked at certain countries individually, I found something odd. In Cuba’s Chapter VII it states, “Citizens have freedom of speech and of the press in keeping with the objectives of socialist society. Material conditions for the exercise of that right are provided by the fact that the press, radio, television, movies and other organs of the mass media are State or social property and can never be private property. This assures their use at the exclusive service of the working people and in the interest of society. The law regulates the exercise of these freedoms.” So technically they do have the freedom of the press, however, with all forms of the “mass media” being under the State or social’s rule, is this really freedom of the press?
LikeLike
I believe that Molly hit the nail on the head. I believe that states wanted to control the rights of their people and to make sure they have majority of the power. You can tell which regions were stricter with freedom of press with the way the terminology is stated.
LikeLike
I would imagine that many of the states did not feel the “need” to recognize the freedom of the press because many state officials were probably not ready to take a complete 180 degree turn around from what they were used to in Britain. While people definitely wanted a change, I could easily see many officials with power not wanting to give the press such pull in society during this drastic time of change in their new country. One of the most surprising things I found was there are still a good number of countries in the world that allow slavery or indentured servitude. Even Canada, a renowned and advanced western country, has no law making slavery illegal (assuming I read the figure correctly).
LikeLike
I also think that the reason they did not want to acknowledge the freedoms of the people was so that they could exercise more control over their people. I feel that they had some sort of thinking that if they allowed these people to have what they want, then there was some chance that the people would use that to their advantage and do things that went against what they believed or tried to prevent.
I enjoyed that most of the nations around the world did acknowledge and exercise their rights to their freedom of speech and freedom of press. I also agree with Molly when she said that it was interesting to see how specific some of the laws were worded and then there were laws that were vague.
LikeLike
The states that didn’t want to establish freedom of the press were probably wanting to have more control over their people. Not allowing people the right to this freedom would enable the state to have more control on [of] how news was published or spread in their state. I believe that their decisions were centered around the fear of losing power to the people. One thing that surprised me about the freedom of the press around the world is that there are still a few places that don’t have freedom of the press.
LikeLike
I think that Zyler Bardin’s comment on the freedom of press, and about how country [?] were maybe fearful to give it such power is very accurate. I was always under the impression that this was an American idea, and that it was revolutionary. It was revolutionary, but now I would not call it uniquely American.
I was most struck by the difficulty of agreement in the video about the Bill of Rights. I was under the impression that this was a lengthy process of course but a preordained one. The difficulty of agreement on most of the bills was intriguing to me.
LikeLike
For this blog post I looked at the Ethics Case Study on “A Controversial Apology” in which student journalists at Northwestern released an apology after a barrage of complaints came from their coverage of a speech and then post[ed] [an] apology they recieved [received] complaints for their apology. Northwestern is a private university and the newspaper is student run and independent of the university. The newspaper covered the student protests at the speech being held on campus by former U.S. attorney Jeff Sessions and it was this coverage that caused the conflict. I believe that the newspaper journalists had the right to apologize if they saw fit, but do not believe that their publication of the event violated any aspect of the Code of Ethics. The students that complained seemed to argue under the “Minimize Harm” section, specifically “Balance the public’s need for information against potential harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance or undue intrusiveness,” but simply documenting this event was not undue intrusion into their lives, nor was it potentially damaging. Personally I believe that the newspaper unnecessarily censored themselves in this instance, but I also recognize the extreme pressure this situation placed upon them. I think the siatuation [situation] could have been addressed through a statement of desire to represent and document the history they are living in rather than apologizing and disregarding their allegiance to the truth as journalists.
LikeLike
The Ethics Case Study that I chose to elaborate on is “A Self-Serving Leak”. In this case Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams, two reporters from the San Francisco Chronicle were in legal trouble from the promise they had made to Troy Ellerman on keeping his confidentiality as a source. Ellerman had leaked information to the two reporters and then lied under oath that he was not the one who did it. The reporters were stuck in a position where they could break their promise as journalists by telling the truth or face jail time for not exposing Ellerman. In my opinion, from reading the information provided on the case I think both reporters made the mistake of making their promise to Ellerman. They weren’t “cautious when making their promise,” stated in the SPJ Code of ethics, but they did “keep the promise that they made”. Their actions showed that they were taking ethical responsibility as a journalist by sticking to their word. As a result of reading this case, I feel that overall journalists need to be more cautious when a source wants to keep their confidentiality because they never know when keeping that promise could get them in trouble like it did in this case. To prevent this from happening again journalist should follow the SPJ Code of Ethics more closely and “identify sources clearly” when reporting on issues. If there is ever any thought that promises made will get them in legal trouble, the journalist should think twice about what they are publishing despite the publicity they will get from it.
LikeLike
I believe that Morris saw the trial of John Peter Zenger as not just a trial finding what would happen to Zenger, but a trial that would change the entire outlook of the press. It overturned a law that made it wrong to print the truth. Without that law overturned American liberty would not be what it is today. I completely and wholeheartedly agree with Morris’ statements. Imagine if a law such as that English common law was around now, the press could not print the truth if it was against someone. Yes as the English common law stated, the truth is much more believable. The findings of, “Crown vs. John Peter Zenger” really is “the morning star of that liberty which subsequently revolutionized America!” It not only revoked the idea that truth can be libelous, but it gave the future American people hope for a brighter tomorrow.
LikeLike
States wanted control over the rights of their people. To ensure the government maintains its role of power. Some locations were more concerned with how freedom of press rules and regulations are controlled while others touch briefly on it or have very little to say. It is certain that religion plays a role as well as political orientation in some states. I believe this is why they are more strict in some states and not strict in others.
LikeLike
I think Gouverner Morris saw this case as one that would really make an impact on American rights for publishing. This trail was one that really tested how much protection is given to publishers and it set the standards for America. I fully agree with Morris’ assessment of its significance. Truth is the ultimate defense for libel claims and telling the truth should not result in a punishment by law. This trial did, in fact, revolutionize America.
Newsgathering should be protected as a first amendment right. It is important for a journalist to be protected when they are gathering information for news stories. What they gather could potentially be published and if what they publish is protected, then newsgathering should have some protection too.
LikeLike
I believe that newsgathering should be protected, but I am also aware that more often than not the information that the public desperately needs to be aware of is the information that is hidden from public scrutiny. The media has always had other routes of action to gather information and engage in the process of gathering and dispersing information and “news” to the people. In this specific case, I do not believe that it would be considered as hindering the freedom of expression or of the press as long as all reporters are not disbarred from accompanying the trip, though it is speaks clearly of the government officials for their petty and immature role within this situation. The issue that came as the precursor to this situation could have been avoided by more closely following the code of ethics and being open and honest with sources about their intentions. Overall, I believe there are problems on both sides and that news gathering does not necessarily align with the other rights mentioned in the first amendment, but if we want to be technical we could view it as a necessity to carry out the role of the press, just as the executive branch argued for the ability to establish the national bank in order to carry out their constitutional roles.
LikeLike
I think Morris knew that this trail [trial] would change the way people looked at press forever. This trial was about more then [than] what was going to happen to Zenger but it also determined if the press would be able to be punished for publishing the truth. I agree with Morris‘s assessment of its significance, it truly did revolutionize American [America] because it gave the press the protection they needed to get information to the public that needed to be heard.
Yes, I do believe newsgathering should be protect as a first amendment right. Journalists have the right to publish information that the public deserves to know, so they should be protected while gathering that information as long as they doing it respectfully.
LikeLike
States didn’t want to establish freedom of press because they felt the need to have full control over it’s [their] citizens, not allowing people this freedom it enabled them to have power over what news was published. It is sad to think that this is still an issues [issue] around the globe in 2020[.] some [Some] people do not have the luxury much less even the right to freedom of the press. All though [Although] laws on freedom of press are vague among all the states in the U.S there is [are] still more freedoms in this regard than many of the country’s [countries] around us. This assumption that control over the press would in turn give the government more power over it’s [its] people is the exact reason we have some issues in the press today.
LikeLike
Blog #6
This article was very interesting for me to read because it is not something I had ever considered as being an issue, but now see as a genuine breach of an individuals privacy. The quote regarding mugshots as feeding “into negative racial stereotypes” is also another genuine issue because it promotes continued profiling of groups of people based solely on appearance rather than any concrete evidence. I believe a mugshot should not be posted for any crime because this puts this individual at risk later in life when attempting to get a job and the mugshot from their low level crime is readily available to their prospective company. There are two aspects of the code of ethics I feel are under pressure from the publication of mugshots and those are “balance the need for knowledge against potential harm or discomfort” and “consider the long term implications or extended reach of publication” because both are potentially threatening to the safety and quality of life of those being publicized.
LikeLike
Blog #7
I believe that, when applied to the common person, the limitations placed upon the press serves the common good because it protects individuals against libel and slander. When applied to celebrities, politicians, and public figures, I believe that it goes against the common interest because it prevents information from being spread that is relevant and possibly beneficial to the common person to be aware of when reading and purusing the news stands. The opinion of Elizabeth Locke. Her ideas on the idea of enforcing the self censorship of the press and the damage that has the capacity to do aligns well with my own opinions. She argues that these laws are more often than not, pointless to both parties, and generally a waste of court time and a repression of a constitutional right, when it remains within defined limitations. The opinion of Arthur Milikh is the statement that I saw as against with my own. I think these ideas of free expression by the press as being vital to a republican government is absoluely true. He mentions the manner in which libel and slander laws played a role in the 2016 election and the way that these laws influenced the outcome and the common belief towards candidates and ideas expressed. I disagree with the outcome of his argument and the manner in which it is utilized as a ploy in encouraging the Trump presidency and not truly addressing the issue at hand.
7- I am not sure that there is a correct answer in this instance. I think protections are important to protecting the people, but also see some of these limitations as exuberant and limiting in their repression of expression and speech via the press.
Heritage Foundation, “Libel Laws and the Press.” https://www.c-span.org/video/?464906-1/libel-laws-press
LikeLike