Freedom of the Press/Specific limitations - Revision history

RightspediaAdmin at 04:44, 6 October 2023

2023-10-06T04:44:17Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:44, 6 October 2023
Line 5:		Line 5:
	\|questionHeading=Is this right subject to specific limitations in event of emergency (war, brief natural disaster [weather, earthquake], long-run natural disaster [volcano, fire, disease])? Can such limitations be defined in advance with reference to the disaster in question?		\|questionHeading=Is this right subject to specific limitations in event of emergency (war, brief natural disaster [weather, earthquake], long-run natural disaster [volcano, fire, disease])? Can such limitations be defined in advance with reference to the disaster in question?
	\|pageLevel=Question		\|pageLevel=Question
	\|contents=Freedom of the press long been shaped by state actors that often in times of emergency see individual rights as second to state interests. Emergency situations such as war, natural disaster and disease typically ~~have~~ allowed governments to restrict this right on the basis of emergency, national security, or fear. Though this restriction can vary in duration, emergency event, country and government type, restrictions of the freedom of the press in emergency situations has a precedent.		\|contents=Freedom of the press long been shaped by state actors that often in times of emergency see individual rights as second to state interests. Emergency situations such as war, natural disaster and disease typically has allowed governments to restrict this right on the basis of emergency, national security, or fear. Though this restriction can vary on duration, emergency event, country and government type, restrictions of the freedom of the press in emergency situations has a precedent.

	In the United States context, in times of war there has been legislation passed to restrict public discourse with government on the basis of national security. The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, passed as the United States prepared for war against France, restricted speech and press critical to government~~. The president at~~ the ~~time was~~ John Adams ~~who was a member of the Federalists Party, and under this legislation he was able~~ to ~~minimize his opposition,~~ the Republican ~~Party’s, influence~~ in politics. Under this act, politicians, editors, and writers were arrested and given jail time because of their publishing against the United States government (Stone, pg. 1663). During the Civil War, President Lincoln suspended the writ of habeus corpus and allowed military officials to enact martial law. This allowed for over 300 newspapers to be shut down for publications that were sympathetic to the confederacy ~~(Stone, pg. 1665)~~.		In the United States context, in times of war there has been legislation passed to restrict public discourse with government on the basis of national security. The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, passed as the United States prepared for war against France, restricted speech and press critical to government which allowed for the Federalist held government under John Adams to weaken the Republican party’s effect in politics. Under this act, politicians, editors, and writers were arrested and given jail time because of their publishing against the United States government (Stone, pg. 1663). During the Civil War, President Lincoln suspended the writ of habeus corpus and allowed military officials to enact martial law. This allowed for over 300 newspapers to be shut down for publications that were sympathetic to the confederacy.

	President Wilson, during World War I, enacted the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918 which stifled those who opposed his policies during wartime. “In effect, these two laws made it unlawful for any person to write or publish any statement that criticized the President, the Congress, the government, the Constitution, the war, the draft, the military, or the uniform of the military of the United States.” (Stone, pg. 1666). These two acts essentially brought back the Alien and ~~Sedition~~ Acts of 1798 which restricted publications opposing government during times of war. During World War I the United States government prosecuted nearly 2000 people under these acts and essentially suspended the freedom of the press concerning government accountability, opposing government, and questioning policy (Stone, pg. 1666).		President Wilson, during World War I, enacted the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918 which stifled those who opposed his policies during wartime. “In effect, these two laws made it unlawful for any person to write or publish any statement that criticized the President, the Congress, the government, the Constitution, the war, the draft, the military, or the uniform of the military of the United States.” (Stone, pg. 1666). These two acts essentially brought back the Alien and Seditions Acts of 1798 which restricted publications opposing government during times of war. During World War I the United States government prosecuted nearly 2000 people under these acts and essentially suspended the freedom of the press concerning government accountability, opposing government, and questioning policy (Stone, pg. 1666).

	By the time the ~~Korean~~ War came, a significant switch in opinion came concerning the freedom of the press during times of war. ~~Opposition to the draft was prominent and opposition option publishing was rarely punished under the Espionage or Sedition acts. Similarly~~, ~~during the Vietnam War~~ newspaper publications, news outlets, and other forms of press ~~that show facts or opinions that reflect negatively on United States involvement in~~ Vietnam were condoned and even backed by judicial ~~cases~~. The publishing of the Pentagon Papers was backed by Supreme Court decision where the court ruled that the national security threat was not clear, or grave enough to restrict the first amendment right of free press. (Stone, pg. 1668). This stance has remained as opposition publications concerning the occupation of Iraq have not been restricted and the freedom of the press has not seen any significant restrictions during wartime on the basis of national security in the more modern (post-World War II) context.		By the time the Vietnam War came, a significant switch in opinion came concerning the freedom of the press during times of war. Mass protests, newspaper publications, news outlets, and other forms of press opposing the Vietnam War were condoned and even backed by judicial case. The publishing of the Pentagon Papers was backed by Supreme Court decision where the court ruled that the national security threat was not clear, or grave enough to restrict the first amendment right of free press. (Stone, pg. 1668). This stance has remained as opposition publications concerning the Korean War and occupation of Iraq have not been restricted and the freedom of the press has not seen any significant restrictions during wartime on the basis of national security in the more modern (post-World War II) context.

	It is nearly impossible to define limitations of free ~~press~~ because of a given emergency as each example varies on a number of different aspects concerning, regime type, government stability, economic factors, and emergency type. Though typically when it comes down to granting the freedom of the press or regime stability, regime stability will prevail, and freedom of the press will be restricted.		With respect to the COVID-19 pandemic, there have been numerous international examples of the restriction of the freedom of the press. Jordan has strengthened the censorship program present, allowing all publications to be subject to censorship concerning the pandemic. Israel has enhanced surveillance on journalists because of the COVID-19 pandemic and the effects publications can have in causing fear. In Hungary, new punishments allowing for the imprisonment of members of the press for publishing anything the government deems to be false information on the basis of starting public panic. Many countries like Greece, Japan, and Ukraine have imposed new laws allowing government to restrict what the media can do and have access to concerning public health. In Cambodia and Vanuatu, legislation has been passed that puts in place a censorship program on the basis of emergency to prevent unrest and fear. These laws prohibit publishing without government approval essentially allowing for government censorship of publications concerning the COVID-19 pandemic. Countries such as Russia, Kyrgyzstan, South Africa, Indonesia, Botswana, Algeria, and Zimbabwe have placed prison sentences as deterrents for journalists and news outlets for publishing anything the government deems untrue or could spark fear. In Liberia, Romania and Myanmar, the government has closed down news sites for publishing information that the government has deemed untrue. These were mainly ethnic minority sites (Selva 2020).

			A study published in 2018 by Kodai Kusano and Markus Kemmelmeier looked into the effect natural disasters have on socio-political rights and the freedom of the press, among other things. They concluded that natural disasters cannot predict the level of freedom of the press as other economic factors have a stronger causal relationship. There was no support for their hypothesis that natural disasters will lead to lower levels of socio-political freedoms and freedom of the press (Kusano and Kemmelmeier, 2018).

			It is nearly impossible to define limitations of free speech because of a given emergency as each example varies on a number of different aspects concerning, regime type, government stability, economic factors, and emergency type. Though typically when it comes down to granting the freedom of the press or regime stability, regime stability will prevail, and freedom of the press will be restricted.

	References:		References:
Line 19:		Line 23:
	Geoffrey R. Stone, "Freedom of the Press in Time of War," 59 SMU Law Review 1663 (2006).		Geoffrey R. Stone, "Freedom of the Press in Time of War," 59 SMU Law Review 1663 (2006).

	~~Repucci~~, ~~Sarah~~, and ~~Amy Slipowitz~~. ~~“Democracy under Lockdown~~.” ~~Freedom House~~, ~~Freedom House~~, 2020, ~~freedomhouse~~.~~org~~/~~report~~/~~special~~-~~report/2020/democracy~~-~~under~~-~~lockdown~~.		Kusano K and Kemmelmeier M (2018) Ecology of Freedom: Competitive Tests of the Role of Pathogens, Climate, and Natural Disasters in the Development of Socio-Political Freedom. Front. Psychol. 9:954. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00954

			Selva, Meera. “Healing Words: How Press Freedom Is Being Threatened by the Coronavirus Pandemic.” Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, University of Oxford, 7 Apr. 2020, reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/risj-review/healing-words-how-press-freedom-being-threatened-coronavirus-pandemic.
	}}		}}

RightspediaAdmin: Created page with "{{Right section |right=Freedom of the Press |section=Limitations - Restrictions |question=Specific limitations |questionHeading=Is this right subject to specific limitations in event of emergency (war, brief natural disaster [weather, earthquake], long-run natural disaster [volcano, fire, disease])? Can such limitations be defined in advance with reference to the disaster in question? |pageLevel=Question |contents=Freedom of the press long been shaped by state actors tha..."

2023-09-08T23:20:09Z

Created page with "{{Right section |right=Freedom of the Press |section=Limitations - Restrictions |question=Specific limitations |questionHeading=Is this right subject to specific limitations in event of emergency (war, brief natural disaster [weather, earthquake], long-run natural disaster [volcano, fire, disease])? Can such limitations be defined in advance with reference to the disaster in question? |pageLevel=Question |contents=Freedom of the press long been shaped by state actors tha..."

New page

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of the Press
|section=Limitations - Restrictions
|question=Specific limitations
|questionHeading=Is this right subject to specific limitations in event of emergency (war, brief natural disaster [weather, earthquake], long-run natural disaster [volcano, fire, disease])? Can such limitations be defined in advance with reference to the disaster in question?
|pageLevel=Question
|contents=Freedom of the press long been shaped by state actors that often in times of emergency see individual rights as second to state interests. Emergency situations such as war, natural disaster and disease typically have allowed governments to restrict this right on the basis of emergency, national security, or fear. Though this restriction can vary in duration, emergency event, country and government type, restrictions of the freedom of the press in emergency situations has a precedent.

In the United States context, in times of war there has been legislation passed to restrict public discourse with government on the basis of national security. The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, passed as the United States prepared for war against France, restricted speech and press critical to government. The president at the time was John Adams who was a member of the Federalists Party, and under this legislation he was able to minimize his opposition, the Republican Party’s, influence in politics. Under this act, politicians, editors, and writers were arrested and given jail time because of their publishing against the United States government (Stone, pg. 1663). During the Civil War, President Lincoln suspended the writ of habeus corpus and allowed military officials to enact martial law. This allowed for over 300 newspapers to be shut down for publications that were sympathetic to the confederacy (Stone, pg. 1665).

President Wilson, during World War I, enacted the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918 which stifled those who opposed his policies during wartime. “In effect, these two laws made it unlawful for any person to write or publish any statement that criticized the President, the Congress, the government, the Constitution, the war, the draft, the military, or the uniform of the military of the United States.” (Stone, pg. 1666). These two acts essentially brought back the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 which restricted publications opposing government during times of war. During World War I the United States government prosecuted nearly 2000 people under these acts and essentially suspended the freedom of the press concerning government accountability, opposing government, and questioning policy (Stone, pg. 1666).

By the time the Korean War came, a significant switch in opinion came concerning the freedom of the press during times of war. Opposition to the draft was prominent and opposition option publishing was rarely punished under the Espionage or Sedition acts. Similarly, during the Vietnam War newspaper publications, news outlets, and other forms of press that show facts or opinions that reflect negatively on United States involvement in Vietnam were condoned and even backed by judicial cases. The publishing of the Pentagon Papers was backed by Supreme Court decision where the court ruled that the national security threat was not clear, or grave enough to restrict the first amendment right of free press. (Stone, pg. 1668). This stance has remained as opposition publications concerning the occupation of Iraq have not been restricted and the freedom of the press has not seen any significant restrictions during wartime on the basis of national security in the more modern (post-World War II) context.

It is nearly impossible to define limitations of free press because of a given emergency as each example varies on a number of different aspects concerning, regime type, government stability, economic factors, and emergency type. Though typically when it comes down to granting the freedom of the press or regime stability, regime stability will prevail, and freedom of the press will be restricted.

References:

Geoffrey R. Stone, "Freedom of the Press in Time of War," 59 SMU Law Review 1663 (2006).

Repucci, Sarah, and Amy Slipowitz. “Democracy under Lockdown.” Freedom House, Freedom House, 2020, freedomhouse.org/report/special-report/2020/democracy-under-lockdown.
}}