CHAPTER ESSENTIALS

• In the United States, freedom of speech and freedom of the press are protected by the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights. However, Americans have long debated what constitutes “free expression.” Around the globe, four different interpretations emerged of what “free expression” means: the authoritarian model (which tolerates little criticism of government or public dissent), the state model (in which the government controls the press), the social responsibility model (in which the press is privately owned and functions as a Fourth Estate—an unofficial branch of government that watches for abuses of power by the legislative, judicial, and executive branches), and the libertarian model (which encourages vigorous criticism of government and supports the highest degree of individual and press freedoms) (pp. 417–420).
• Though the First Amendment prohibits censorship, which is defined as prior restraint—meaning that courts and governments cannot block any publication or speech before it actually occurs—two pivotal court cases have tested this idea: the Pentagon Papers case and the Progressive magazine case (pp. 420–422).
• Some forms of expression are not protected under the Constitution. These forms include sedition, copyright infringement (a copyright legally protects the rights of the authors and producers to their published or unpublished writing for a specified period of time, after which the work enters the public domain, allowing the public free access to the work), and libel or defamation of someone’s character (which differs from slander or spoken defamation). To win a libel case, public officials must prove falsehood, damages, negligence, and actual malice (meaning that a reporter or an editor knew the statement was false and printed it anyway). Defenses against libel include the truth and the rule of opinion and fair comment—the notion that opinions, unlike statements of factual information, are protected from libel. Other forms of expression not protected by the Constitution are obscenity, which people have had difficulty defining over the years, and violation of privacy (the right to privacy addresses a person’s right to be left alone without personal information becoming public property) (pp. 422–425, 428–429).
• The First Amendment has clashed with the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees accused individuals the right to speedy and public trials by impartial juries. Gag orders (speech restrictions) and laws governing use of cameras in the courtroom put restrictions on speech and other forms of expression for the sake of Sixth Amendment rights, whereas shield laws protect reporters from revealing confidential sources of information used in news stories (pp. 430–431).

• The advent of film presented new challenges for those seeking to determine whether expression in film should be protected. For the first half of the twentieth century, citizen groups and the Supreme Court failed to recognize movies as protected speech. The movie industry began regulating itself to safeguard its profits and avoid further government oversight (pp. 431–434).

• Because it uses the public airwaves, broad-casting receives fewer protections than film and print. Though government cannot censor broadcast content, it may punish broadcasters after the fact for indecency or profanity. In addition, Section 315 of the 1934 Communications Act mandates that during elections, broadcast stations must provide equal opportunities and response time for qualified political candidates. From 1949 to 1987, an important corollary to Section 315, the Fairness Doctrine, required stations to air programs about controversial issues affecting their communities and to provide competing points of view during the programs (pp. 435–436, 438).
• Since the Internet is not regulated by the government, not subject to the Communications Act of 1934, and has done little self-regulating, many consider it a true venue for free speech, though debates exist about what forms of expression should be allowed (pp. 438–439).

• Questions about the First Amendment’s influence over freedom of expression in mass media are centered on democracy (p. 439).
• As journalism becomes compromised by the business of media, sites like WikiLeaks have become de facto watchdog groups, raising questions about the public’s right to know sensitive information (pp. 440–441).