Property:Contents
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
F
In 1789, notably before the Bill of Rights was adopted, Massachusetts Chief Justice William Cushing wrote, “The propagating literature and knowledge by printing or otherwise tends to illuminate men's minds and to establish them in principles of freedom. But it cannot be denied also, that a free scanning of the conduct of the administration and shewing the tendency of it, and where truth will warrant, making it manifest that it is subversive of all law, liberty, and the Constitution; it can't be denied.” Cushing seemed to be concerned with sedition and libel, which had been the subject of prosecutions, such as the Zenger case in 1735, throughout the pre-revolutionary American colonies. A decade later, the Federalist Party in the 5th Congress with John Adams as president, passed the Alien and Sedition acts which clamped down on free speech and press before later being rolled back under Thomas Jefferson’s administration. (Charles & O'Neill 2012)
The role of adversarial press in both the American and French revolutions should not be neglected as foundational events that contributed to the identification of the right to a free press; pamphleteering, self-publishing, and revolutionary periodicals were important uses of media that furthered public discord, and were largely viewed as instrumental to the success of the revolutions—something Chief Justice Cushing later referred to in his 1789 letter to John Adams. The institution of an adversarial press was thought to provoke a responsive government, and ultimately be a way of avoiding violent revolution by creating public pressure.
Following the French Revolution, the full-scale liberation of the press was established—upending much of the established models of publishing and paving the way for later reforms that ultimately shaped modern copyright and piracy protections. This, depending on how broad a conception of free press we consider, may have been a certain sort of backsliding. (Wresch 2003)
A few years removed from Cushing’s letter to John Adams, the United States Constitution was amended with the Bill of Rights, which protected the freedom of expression and press as a foundational aspect of human liberty. (That is to say, for example, the American third amendment right to be free from quartering soldiers was created in response to the living memory of the abuse under colonial rule.) In the case of the freedom of the press, the abuses to publication in both France and the United Stated in their pre-revolutionary periods set the stage for the protection of the freedom of the press in these given case studies.
In 1804 Jefferson said “While we deny that Congress have a right to control the freedom of the press, we have ever asserted the right of the states, and their exclusive right, to do so. They have accordingly, all of them, made provisions for punishing slander, which those who have time and inclination resort to for the vindication of their characters." (Scherr 2016)
In the American context, the protections for the freedom of the press gradually expanded to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, with the landmark Supreme Court case Near v. Minnesota in 1931. Prior restraint was deemed unconstitutional even on the state level, and the protections for a free press were expanded accordingly.
Internationally, the recognition of the freedom of the press, and human rights more generally, came much more recently in history. Following the Second World War, the United Nations convened in 1948 to draft the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). As the human rights theorist Henry Shue suggests in his book Basic Rights, human rights are often created in response to reliable and predictable threats of abuse, most often those that are in living memory. In response to the violations of human rights that took place during World War II, the assertion of certain universal human rights were take up so as to set a standard for the international community, and be regarded as the net beneath which no one should be allowed to fall.
Article 19 in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” The flexibility of the wording of this right in the UDHR serves as a method for ensuring that there need not be constant revisions as technology and culture advance around the world, and also to avoid creating an implicitly hierarchical list or pyramid of forms of expression that must be protected above all else.
The sedimentation of the right into International human rights law has continued long after being drafted into the UDHR. “Since its inclusion in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the right to freedom of opinion and expression has been protected in all of the relevant international human rights treaties. In international law, freedom to express opinions and ideas is considered essential at both an individual level, insofar as it contributes to the full development of a person, and being a foundation stone of democratic society.” (Howie 2018)
References:
Patrick J. Charles & Kevin Francis O'Neill, Saving the Press Clause from Ruin: The Customary Origins of a Free Press as Interface to the Present and Future, 2012 UTAH L. REV. 1691 (2012)
Emily Howie (2018) Protecting the human right to freedom of expression in international law, International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 20:1, 12-15, DOI: 10.1080/17549507.2018.1392612
Near v. Minnesota 283 U.S. 697 (https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/283us697)
Scherr, A. (2016). Thomas Jefferson, the “Libertarian” Jeffersonians of 1799, and Leonard W. Levy’s Freedom of the Press. Journalism History, 42(2), 58-69.)
Shue, Henry. Basic Rights : Subsistence, Affluence, and U.S. Foreign Policy. 40th anniversary edition. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2020.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
Wresch, William. "Perspectives on the Right to Publish: Global Inequalities, Digital Publications, and the Legacy of Revolutionary France." Ethics and Information Technology, vol. 5, no. 2, 2003, pp. 117-127.
In [[Probable year:: 2017]], Freedom House estimated that only 13% of the world’s population lived in states with free press (Abramowitz, [[Probable year:: 2017]], 8). Thirteen percent is low and creates little incentive for less-free media states to improve media freedoms (Abramowitz, [[Probable year:: 2017]], 16). 45% of the population lived in states with ‘not free’ press, while 42% of the population lived in states with ‘partly free’ press (Abramowitz, [[Probable year:: 2017]], 8). Freedom House defines free press on a spectrum, with free press being an environment that allows the right to seek and distribute information without interruption or censorship. These can take many forms, such as arresting or threatening journalists, being influenced by the government (monetarily or otherwise), or restricting access to news sources (i.e., disabling the internet) (Repucci, [[Probable year:: 2019]]) . The presence of these elements decreased media in the state and hinders citizens’ ability to get impartial information. In [[Probable year:: 2017]], free states were, generally, the United States of America, Canada, Australia, and Western Europe (Abramowitz, [[Probable year:: 2017]], 14-15). Partially free states were prominent in South America, Southern Africa, Western Africa, Oceania, Central America, and Central and Eastern Europe, with the additions of India and Mongolia (Abramowitz, [[Probable year:: 2017]], 14-15). Not free states were common in Eastern Africa and Asia (Abramowitz, [[Probable year:: 2017]], 14-15).
Freedom of expression is called for and agreed upon in many international conventions: the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) Article 10, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 19, American Convention on Human Rights Article 13, and the African Charter of Human Rights Article 9 (ARTICLE 19, [[Probable year:: 2004]], 2). The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights explicitly calls out freedom of the press (ARTICLE 19, [[Probable year:: 2004]], 2; Stier, [[Probable year:: 2015]], [[Probable year:: 1274]]) . These conventions and declarations pave the way for freedom of the press in many states, though it is recognized that freedom of expression may be limited, mostly for the protection of something or someone. Exceptions, according to the Human Rights Committee, must be provided by law to safeguard a legitimate interest and must also be necessary to secure this interest (ARTICLE 19, [[Probable year:: 2004]], 2).
Free: Though credited with some of the freest press in the world in [[Probable year:: 2017]], freedom of the press in the United States looked to be declining (Abramowitz, [[Probable year:: 2017]], 1). Factors such as media polarization, mistrust, undermining, and profit-motivated media coupled with changing business models were contributing factors in this decline, though constitutional checks prevented even more decline (Abramowitz, [[Probable year:: 2017]], 1). Additionally, recent presidents’ actions have trended toward more restrictive of the media (Abramowitz, [[Probable year:: 2017]], 1-2). Despite the Freedom Act of [[Probable year:: 2015]], media monitoring is prominent in the United States, as well as other free media states such as Canada, Britain, Germany, and France, and becomes more prominent with less free media (Abramowitz, [[Probable year:: 2017]], 16).
Partly Free: In partly free media states, generally, media is not explicitly restricted or censored, but actions taken by the government have demonstrated restrictions. In Hungary, pro-government media was monetarily rewarded by Hungary’s government was only selling stories to specific media outlets (Abramowitz, [[Probable year:: 2017]], 6; Banks, [[Probable year:: 2020]]) . These actions “unfairly starved independent media channels” while publicly funding channels that were politically advantageous to the government (Banks, [[Probable year:: 2020]]) . This practice began after Hungary adopted a new constitution in [[Probable year:: 2011]] and the incident was taken up for investigation in accordance with the ECHR in [[Probable year:: 2020]] after multiple complaints (Banks, [[Probable year:: 2020]]) . Brazil used five journalists’ trials as a warning toward journalists and potential stories rather than explicitly restricting the media (Abramowitz, [[Probable year:: 2017]], 21). The five journalists were taken to court for 50 counts exposing the high earnings of judiciary members but placed the trials all over the country (Abramowitz, [[Probable year:: 2017]], 21). This action imposed a large monetary and temporal cost on the journalists, causing journalists to think twice about a story before publishing.
Not Free:
The ten states with the least amount of press freedom are North Korea, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Crimea, Eritrea, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Azerbaijan, Iran, and Syria (Abramowitz, [[Probable year:: 2017]], 9). States such as these have restrictive media guidelines, such as media monitoring or elimination. In many states, from Ethiopia to Zimbabwe to Turkey, media has been shut down at crucial political moments such as elections or protests (Abramowitz, [[Probable year:: 2017]], 5, 9, 20). Turkey is a state with constitutional protection of media, though it has laws that contradict this protection and criminalize reporting on some topics (Whitten-Woodring, [[Probable year:: 2009]], 599). In Egypt, the military influences the media, preventing private, independent media (Abramowitz, [[Probable year:: 2017]], 17). In Syria, many journalists are exiled, and many surrounding states make it difficult for them to continue their work (Abramowitz, [[Probable year:: 2017]], 4). In Venezuela, some actions against the media have consisted of preventing international journalists from covering a planned protest and reacting with violence when some chose to cover it anyway (Abramowitz, [[Probable year:: 2017]], 13). Russia and China are restrictive of their press with both censorship and market influence, but they take advantage of the freedoms in the United States and France to try to influence perceptions in these areas for their state’s political gain (Repucci & Slipowitz, [[Probable year:: 2021]]; Stier, [[Probable year:: 2015]], [[Probable year:: 1275]]) . Russia takes similar actions with its Russian-speaking neighbors, especially Ukraine, for similar reasons, and has begun to try to influence the EU as well (Abramowitz, [[Probable year:: 2017]], 9). China is also restrictive due to its very strict penalties and monitoring for criticism, while also preventing its people from giving information to outside sources (Abramowitz, [[Probable year:: 2017]], 16).
Exceptions
Exceptions to freedom of the press vary between states. Pew Research Center found that Americans are most likely to accept all types of free speech and people in most states are content with protecting speech against the government under freedom of expression, even if it may cause instability (Poushter & Givens, [[Probable year:: 2015]]) . However, this acceptance varies by region; there is over 90% support for this idea in North American and Europe, while there is less support, around 70% in the Middle East, Asia, the Pacific, and Africa (Wike & Simmons, [[Probable year:: 2015]]) . Exceptions begin to appear beyond these boundaries (Wike & Simmons, [[Probable year:: 2015]]) . For instance, support for being able to say offensive words to minorities or about religious beliefs is below 50% in all regions of the world surveyed except for the United States and Canada (Wike & Simmons). Exceptions against freedom of the press with the most support are comments that are sexually explicit or call for violent protests. Each of these types has less than 40% support to be a protected form of speech (Wike & Simmons, [[Probable year:: 2015]]) .
Defamation: Most common in media is defamation law, in which strictness varies between states based on the written laws, strictness of implementation, burden of proof, and punishment (Botsford). Internationally, defamation’s burden of proof is typically just the intent to make the statement, not that it was made in bad faith (Botsford). In most places, defamation is a criminal offense, though there are some advocates for a change toward a civil offense (Botsford). Defamation charges are somewhat common with just over half of EU states convicting a journalist of defamation between [[Probable year:: 2010]] and [[Probable year:: 2015]], though imprisonment was rare, and some states have such laws but do not enforce them (Botsford).
Investigation for defamation can be very disruptive due to the seizure of personal and professional assets, preventing further journalism at the time (Botsford). Libel and insult charges against Russian Mikhail Afanasyev resulting from a piece he authored were quite disruptive to the media in the region (Botsford; Committee to Protect Journalists, [[Probable year:: 2013]]) . In the piece, Afanasyev claimed that Alexander Zlotnikov, who had testified to a court that Afanasyev had attempted to record a police arrest and was obstructive while doing so, was lying and immoral, among other things (Committee to Protect Journalists, [[Probable year:: 2013]]) . A defamation claim was immediately filed against Afanasyev, and a four-month investigation commenced (Committee to Protect Journalists, [[Probable year:: 2013]]) . Despite his eventual acquittal, the Russian investigation into Mikhail Afanasyev ruined media in his region of Siberia, as he was the only independent source (Botsford). This instance was not the first time he was targeted for his work at the Novy Fokus (Committee to Protect Journalists, [[Probable year:: 2013]]) .
Turkey also strictly implements defamation law, so that it not only is affecting journalists but those in other professions as well (Botsford). Italy, a partly free media state, routinely uses these laws and imprisons journalists for libel – the only EU state to do so (Botsford). On the other hand, Ireland and the United Kingdom, free media states, have repealed their libel laws, and South Africa, a partly free media state, has taken steps to eliminate the law as well (Botsford).
References:
Abramowitz, M. (2017, Apr.). Freedom of the press 2017. Freedom House. https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/2020-02/FOTP_2017_booklet_FINAL_April28_1.pdf
ARTICLE 19. (2004, Feb.). Briefing note on international and comparative defamation standards. https://www.article19.org/data/files/pdfs/analysis/defamation-standards.pdf
Banks, M. (2020, Oct. 26). EU investigating whether Hungarian state aid spending is undermining media freedom. https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/news/article/eu-investigating-whether-hungarian-state-aid-spending-is-undermining-media-freedom
Botsford, P. (n.d.). Word crimes – defamation and freedom of expression. International Bar Association. https://www.ibanet.org/article/9E40E124-20BB-4533-A919-C7B5345F34C4 Committee to Protect Journalists. (2013, Apr. 15). Online journalist in Siberia faces defamation charges. https://cpj.org/2013/04/online-journalist-in-siberia-faces-defamation-char/
Poushter, J. & Givens, G. (2015, Nov. 18). Where the world sees limits to free speech. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/18/where-the-world-sees-limits-to-free-speech/
Repucci, S. (2019). Freedom and the media 2019. Freedom House. https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-and-media/2019/media-freedom-downward-spiral.
Repucci, S. & Slipowitz, A. (2021). Freedom in the world 2021. Freedom House. https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2021/democracy-under-siege
Stier, S. (2015). Democracy, autocracy and the news: the impact of regime type on media freedom. Democratization, 22(7), 1273-1295. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2014.964643
Whitten-Woodring, J. (2009). Watchdog or lapdog? Media freedom, regime type, and government respect for human rights. International Studies Quarterly 53, 595-625. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2478.2009.00548.x
Wike, R. & Simmons, K. (2015, Nov. 18). 2. The boundaries of free speech and a free press. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2015/11/18/2-the-boundaries-of-free-speech-and-a-free-press/
Freedom House called freedom of the press “a cornerstone of global democracy” and others have deemed it crucial (Abramowitz, [[Probable year:: 2017]], 2; Whitten-Woodring, [[Probable year:: 2009]], 595). But does that mean regime affects how this right is exercised? Regime affects the institutions and framework around the media and freedom of the press (Stier, [[Probable year:: 2015]], [[Probable year:: 1273]]) . Democracy, government legitimacy, and free press are generally connected as there are easier ways to criticize, advocate for change, and hold leaders accountable (Whitten-Woodring, [[Probable year:: 2009]], 596). Research backs this up. In a study of states from [[Probable year:: 1948]]- [[Probable year:: 1995]], 82% of democracies had free press and 88% of autocracies had controlled press; The correlation between free or controlled media and regime type is 0.74, a moderately strong score (Whitten-Woodring, [[Probable year:: 2009]], 602, 619). A [[Probable year:: 1993]]- [[Probable year:: 2010]] study found a correlation between these variables as well (Stier, [[Probable year:: 2015]], [[Probable year:: 1273]]) . Most argue that this is due to the increased legitimacy, transparency, and accountability – all things necessary in a healthy democracy. There were notable exceptions in these trends: Mexico, Uganda, and Turkey.
Democracies
Turkey, a multi-party democracy for almost 70 years, ranked highly on Freedom House’s democracy scale from [[Probable year:: 1993]]- [[Probable year:: 2004]], has heavily censored media since a [[Probable year:: 2016]] coup attempt (Repucci, [[Probable year:: 2019]]) . News outlets have closed, the internet has become restrictive and government-censored, and traditional media platforms have become unavailable (Repucci, [[Probable year:: 2019]]) . There is still local press, but accessibility has declined, requiring the use of workarounds, such as VPNs and social media rather than traditional local news sources, such as newspapers (Repucci, [[Probable year:: 2019]]) .
In Germany, board members of news outlet ZDF were supportive of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party, but their Editor-in-Chief was not (Stier, [[Probable year:: 2015]], [[Probable year:: 1277]]) . ZDF is Germany’s national public broadcaster and is “a leading source of information,” providing a comprehensive view of the state (Facts and figures about ZDF, [[Probable year:: 2021]]) . The board did not renew his contract, likely because he was critical of the government and a talented investigator, leading him to uncover instances that were not politically advantageous for the CDU. This claim that an Editor-in-Chief did not have a contract renewed for holding different political views isn’t great for the free press narrative, especially when nearly half of the council works for the government (Facts and figures [[Probable year:: 2020]], [[Probable year:: 2020]]) .
Autocracies
Autocracies control media to ensure the survival of the regime. Thus, there are two prevailing media policies in autocratic states with controlled press: prevent discussion regarding the exercise of power and strictly control opposition organizations and efforts (Stier, [[Probable year:: 2015]], [[Probable year:: 1277]]) . Under these policies, controlled media can also help promote the government’s rule and agenda (Whitten-Woodring, [[Probable year:: 2009]], 601). There are, however, instances of strategic censorship, in which autocracies allow minimal elements of media freedom. These policies have a similar goal as one-party states holding elections – achieving a look of democracy (Stier, [[Probable year:: 2015]], [[Probable year:: 1278]]) . When this control is relinquished too quickly, it can have unintended consequences. In a well-known instance, Mikhail Gorbachev implemented freer press and expression in the Soviet Union in the late [[Probable year:: 1980]]s with his glasnost policy (Stier, [[Probable year:: 2015]], [[Probable year:: 1279]]) . Under the communist autocracy in place and with significantly fewer media regulations, this new freedom aided a rapid decline within the state as government mismanagement became revealed (Stier, [[Probable year:: 2015]], [[Probable year:: 1279]]) .
Generally, free press happens accidentally; this was the case in Mexico and Uganda. In the [[Probable year:: 1980]]s , Uganda media began asserting independence against the US in a partisan way against the new government, prompting a “media war” (Whitten-Woodring, [[Probable year:: 2009]], 601). In the mid-[[Probable year:: 1980]]s , the Moseveni government came into power. This government was liked better by the media, but when the new Moseveni government began human rights violations, the media still reported it. Moseveni tried to shut them down, but the media retained their independence (Whitten-Woodring, [[Probable year:: 2009]], 601). Under Mexican autocratic rule in the [[Probable year:: 1990]]s , the media began to criticize the government and assert independence (Whitten-Woodring, [[Probable year:: 2009]], 614). This trend accelerated in the late [[Probable year:: 1990]]s with more aggressive media tactics, with journalists putting themselves at risk (Whitten-Woodring, [[Probable year:: 2009]], 614). On the other hand, Stier ([[Probable year:: 2015]], [[Probable year:: 1280]]) acknowledges that long-lasting, autocratic regimes, such as monarchies, have the benefit of being prosperous and well-liked. These characteristics, along with a strong military presence, limit the chance of being overthrown and can lead to more press freedoms (Stier, [[Probable year:: 2015]], [[Probable year:: 1280]]) . Accordingly, autocratic characteristics that are associated with fewer media freedoms are communism and one-party systems (Stier, [[Probable year:: 2015]], [[Probable year:: 1281]]) .
References:
Abramowitz, M. (2017, Apr.). Freedom of the press 2017. Freedom House. https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/2020-02/FOTP_2017_booklet_FINAL_April28_1.pdf
Facts and figures 2020. (2020). ZDF. https://www.zdf.de/zdfunternehmen/factsandfigures-100.html
Facts and figures about ZDF (2021, April. 20). ZDF. https://www.zdf.de/zdfunternehmen/factsandfigures-100.html
Repucci, S. (2019). Freedom and the media 2019. Freedom House. https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-and-media/2019/media-freedom-downward-spiral.
Stier, S. (2015). Democracy, autocracy and the news: the impact of regime type on media freedom. Democratization, 22(7), 1273-1295. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2014.964643
Whitten-Woodring, J. (2009). Watchdog or lapdog? Media freedom, regime type, and government respect for human rights. International Studies Quarterly 53, 595-625. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2478.2009.00548.x
ZDF. (2021, Aug. 21). Wikipedia. Retrieved Sept. 7, 2021, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZDF
In international human rights law, freedom of the press is outlined in the International Bill of Human Rights, which encompasses the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the International Covenant for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). These documents include the rights protected as well as exceptions, or derogations, if they are applicable. The UDHR is not a treaty, so states are not legally bound to it (Australian Human Rights Commission). Still, the document serves as a foundation for international human rights legislation. Article 19 of the UDHR protects the right to “receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” Article 29(2) briefly states general derogations for the rights laid out in other articles:
“In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society” (United Nations General Assembly, 1948).
Unlike the UDHR, the ICCPR is legally binding to the states that ratify it. The ICCPR contains similar language in paragraph 2 of Article 19 relating to freedom of the press, but goes farther in the following paragraphs to mention restrictions. These acceptable restrictions “shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary: For respect of the rights or reputations of others; For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals” (United Nations General Assembly, 1966). Additionally, Article 20(1) prohibits war propaganda, which is often distributed by means of government and independent news media and involves the strategically crafted systems of gathering and distributing information as to incite war support (Miller, 2004, 8). Freedom of the press includes the media’s right to freely publish information, but also includes the people’s right to receive accurate information, especially during times of political tension, such as war or elections when this right may be jeopardized. The 2009 Joint Declaration of the United Nations, Organization of American States, Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and African Commission on Human and People’s Rights emphasized the importance of people’s access to accurate, impartial information (UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression et al., 2009). Because freedom of the press includes the ability to both receive and impart information, prohibiting war propaganda can be seen both as the protection of people’s right to receive impartial news and the limitation of the press from spreading inaccurate or violence-inciting media. Miller argues that war propaganda includes not only outward attempts to garner war support through the media, but also subtle manipulation of the media by the state to prevent effective dissent, resulting in “information dominance” by the state so they may further their military agendas (Miller, 2004, 14). Article 20(2) of the ICCPR prohibits advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that incites discrimination or violence, which applies but is not limited to freedom of the press.
The Article 4 of the ICCPR also includes measures for states of emergency and highlights the rights and articles from which states cannot derogate, including the right to life (Article 6), protection against torture (Article 7), protection against slavery (Article 8), protection against debt imprisonment (Article 11), protection against punishment for a crime that was not illegal at the time it was committed (Article 15), the right to recognition before the law (Article 16), and the right to religion and freedom of conscience (Article 18). The specified list of rights to be protected during emergencies does not include freedom of the press, meaning states are permitted to restrict the press under the conditions “that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion, or social origin” and that states inform the United Nations of the right from which they derogated, the reasons they derogated, and the date on which the derogation will end (United Nations General Assembly, 1966, Article 4(1), Article 4(3)). Hafner-Burton, Helfer, and Fariss argue that the processes outlined in derogation clauses of human rights law allow derogators to take the necessary actions during an emergency situation and signal to the international community that those actions will be temporary and carried out in a lawful manner (2011, 673-674). The United Nations includes the descriptive conditions and processes by which states can derogate from rights such as freedom of the press because otherwise states may be hesitant to ratify human rights treaties in the first place, and therefore not protect those rights at all. According to Siehr, “The common task of emergency clauses in human rights instruments is to cope with the challenge of finding a middle course between the recognition of the legitimate right of sovereign States to defend their constitutional, democratic order and the prevention of misuse of the tool of emergency rights” (Siehr, 2004, 546). This can prove to be difficult, as the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the primary body for monitoring freedom of the press and information, reported “that perpetrators of internet shutdowns often try to justify them as a ‘precautionary measure’ or as a matter related to ‘national security,’ ‘public safety,’ or ‘hate speech,’ when the underlying motivations appear strongly correlated with moments of political instability, protests, communal violence, or elections” (UNESCO, 2022, 51).
To ensure that derogations from freedom of the press, specifically those in the name of disinformation campaigns, are necessary, lawful, and transparent, UNESCO has recommended: that state restrictions freedom of the press include input from a variety of independent groups, civil society organizations, and research specialists (UNESCO, 2020, 14); that UNESCO partner with other United Nations bodies to guarantee that derogations from freedom of the press are ethical and do not violate the right more than necessary (12); that relevant media actors increase the capacity of independent press councils in their monitoring efforts (217).
References:
Australian Human Rights Commission. 2007. “What is the Universal Declaration on Human Rights?” Accessed July 5, 2024. https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/commission-general/projects/what-universal-declaration-human-rights
Hafner-Burton, Emilie, Laurence Helfer, Christopher Fariss. 2011. “Emergency and Escape: Explaining Derogations from Human Rights Treaties.” Cambridge University Press 65, no.4. 673-707. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002081831100021X
Miller, David. 2004. “Information Dominance: The Philosophy of Total Propaganda Control?” in War, Media, and Propaganda: A Global Perspective, edited by Yahya Kamalipour and Nancy Snow. 7-16. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=IyQeVFowLnwC&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=war+propaganda+mediums&ots=ld3JH7kqKU&sig=HmizgQAGnNbDQew_MLGqn3h9_QU#v=onepage&q&f=false
Siehr, Angelika. 2004. “Derogation Measures under Article ICCPR, with Special Consideration of the War against International Terrorism.” German Yearbook of International Law, 47. 545-593. https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/gyil47&id=1&collection=journals&index=
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, International Telecommunication Union, Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development. 2020. “Balancing act: countering digital disinformation while respecting freedom of expression: Broadband Commission research report on ‘Freedom of Expression and Addressing Disinformation on the Internet'” https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379015.locale=en
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. 2022. “Press Freedom in Times of Crisis and Transformation.” UNESCO Global Report 2021/2022: Journalism is a Public Good. 44-81. https://doi.org/10.18356/9789210015424c006
United Nations General Assembly. 1948. “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” Accessed July 5, 2024. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
United Nations General Assembly. 1966. “International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights.” Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights. Accessed July 5, 2024. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights
UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, the OAS Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and the ACHPR Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information. 2009. “Joint Statement on the Media and Elections.” Joint Declarations of the representatives of intergovernmental bodies to protect free media and expression, 2013. 53-56. https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/5/5/99558.pdf
Sociologically, the emergence of the freedom of the press as a concept in law dovetails roughly with the Enlightenment. There is an argument to be made that the foundation for the rights articulated during 18th century was established nearly one hundred years prior with natural law philosophers such as John Locke, and while that’s somewhat true, the vernacularization and expansion of rights dialogue during the Enlightenment cannot be neglected as having been foundational to the identification of the right to a free press. (Edelstein. “Enlightenment Rights Talk.”)
As liberalism began to take shape in Europe and principles of innate human dignity and natural rights began to enter everyday western European discourse, so too did the principle of a free press come into law. The earliest documented law governing the free press was enacted in Sweden in 1766 with the Swedish Freedom of Print Act. This law, at least in essence enshrined the freedom of the press on all topics with four specific exceptions. These exceptions were: “challenges to the Evangelical faith; attacks on the constitution, the royal family or foreign powers; defamatory remarks about civil servants or fellow citizens; and indecent or obscene literature.” (Nordin, “Swedish Freedom to Print Act”)
All other topics were more or less protected under this provision of the law. By modern standards this seems to be an incredibly tepid, and seemingly limited conception of freedom of the press —especially given that the Swedish free press law largely protected powerful institutions like the church and monarchy — but nevertheless it was a radically progressive take on the freedom of the press for its time. It was not until decades later that the American conception of the right to a free press would come to exist in various states before being ratified as a part of the United States’ Constitutional Bill of Rights in 1791. However, during the French Revolution and the intellectual culture that accompanied it, the articulation of the right to a free press was made in The Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen. In the document, drafted by the Marquis de Lafayette with feedback from Thomas Jefferson, the right is articulated as follows, “The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law.” ("Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen") The interaction between Jefferson and the Marquis is not insignificant as it likely shaped the development of the conception of the right to a free press as it came to exist in the American context as well.
During the preceding century (the seventeenth century) when the printing press first made its way to urban centers such as Boston and Philadelphia in the American colonies, there were several notable cases of journalists being tried for sedition and libel by English colonial magistrates. After the American revolution, states began to adopt their own constitutions, and supplement the federal constitution, which at the time lacked a bill of rights. One early articulation of the protection of the freedom of the press in the American context was in Pennsylvania’s state constitution. “The Pennsylvania Constitution of 1790 provided that ‘every citizen may freely speak, write, and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that Liberty. In prosecutions for the publications of papers…the truth may be given in evidence.’ Delaware and Kentucky followed suit with their constitutions in 1792.” This was the early makings of the truth as a defense in cases of libel. (Kahane, 1976)
The articulation of the right to a free press in the Pennsylvania state constitution is strikingly similar to that in The Declaration of the Rights of Man and the citizen. These commonalities, if they are more than mere coincidences, point to the overarching influence of the Enlightenment on the formulation of the right to a free press, as well as the connections between the intellectual circles in France and the United States that shaped the recognition of the right to a free press.
References:
The Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/rightsof.asp
Edelstein, Dan. “Enlightenment Rights Talk.” The Journal of Modern History, vol. 86, no. 3, 2014, pp. 530–565. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/676691. Accessed 15 July 2021
Kahane, Dennis S. “Colonial Origins of Our Free Press.” American Bar Association Journal, vol. 62, no. 2, 1976, pp. 202–206. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/25727515. Accessed 9 July 2021.)
Nordin, “The Swedish Freedom of Print Act of 1776 – Background and Significance” https://www.swlaw.edu/sites/default/files/2018-04/Nordin%20Pages%20from%207.2%20FULL%20v7%20%284_13_18%29_.pdf)
Federalism as a system does not affect the way freedom of the press is interpreted, exercised, or applied. +
Generally, exceptions to freedom of the press have been rare in the USA. In Britain, somewhat more relaxed libel laws leave organs of the media more open to suits. However, both consider rare exceptions to these tendencies (Shapiro 2015). In both nations, there are arguments to push more towards the other country’s position. In the United Kingdom, libel law was used to take a U.S. author to court for their writing. This form of “libel tourism” is common due to the ability to sue writers and the press for libel in the UK, increasing the odds of the prosecution winning (Shapiro 2015). The UK’s successful suing of the author in this libel case caused the United states to create Rachel’s Law. This prevented the upholding of the UK ruling in the United States (Glanville 2008). This law in particular is a standard example of the U.S. maintaining greater protections of freedom of the press. In more recent years, the UK has moved closer to stricter libel laws, similar to the United States. The High Court in London dismissed the complaint that journalist Carole Cadwalladr defamed businessman and pro-Brexit movement founder Arron Banks, marking a huge victory for public-interest reporting. This 2022 case served as a major win for stricter exceptions to freedom of the press (“UK: Journalist’s Victory in Libel Case Endorses Media Freedom” 2022).
In the case of the Dominion Voting System versus Fox News, libel laws were essential for the Fox defamation lawsuit (Peltz and Riccardi 2023). The court papers even expressed a profound concern about the broadcaster's actions, likely prompting the settlement money Fox eventually gave to Dominion (Peltz and Riccardi 2023). This demonstrates a certain level of ability to meet the standard for libel/defamation suits in the U.S. For most countries, arguments against freedom of speech and of the press can be broken down into national security, fake news and misinformation, privacy & ethics, sensationalism for profit, and hate speech and incitement (“The Ongoing Challenge to Define Free Speech” 2023). The complicated and ongoing discussion over how to strike a balance between these issues and press freedom protection differs from nation to nation and reflects various cultural, legal, and political settings.
Lately, societies have seen the real world consequences of these freedoms and the exceptions to them. However, Informing the public, promoting democracy, and holding governments responsible all depend on a free press. In order to prevent suffocating free speech, encouraging censorship, or smothering dissenting voices, restrictions on press freedom must be carefully considered. Because technology has grown at a pace too rapid for regulation and societal understanding keep up, it has led to issues with misinformation interfering with governmental processes. Deepfakes have been among these developing concerns. Political experts worry that in order to influence an election, political strategists may create attack commercials utilizing computer-generated "deepfake" films and audio, which they may then release at the last minute (McKenzie 2023). France has made media regulations to aid in preventing election misinformation. French officials urge news organizations and the public to refrain from sharing any information during the media blackout period required by electoral regulations. These electoral regulations are a noticeable exception that were put in place after Macron’s emails were leaked in a hack prior to the 2017 election. There is now a 44 hour blackout of media before all major French elections (“France Doubles Down on Countering Foreign Interference Ahead of Key Elections” 2021).
Bibliography
“France Doubles Down on Countering Foreign Interference Ahead of Key Elections.” 2021. Accessed October 27, 2023. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/france-doubles-down- countering-foreign-interference-ahead-key-elections-0.
Glanville, Jo. 2008. “‘Rachel’s Law’ Protects Free Expression.” Index on Censorship. April 2, 2008. https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2008/04/rachels-law-protects-free-expression/.
McKenzie, Bryan. 2023. “Is That Real? Deepfakes Could Pose Danger to Free Elections.” UVA Today, August 24, 2023. https://news.virginia.edu/content/real-deepfakes-could-pose-danger-free-elections.
Peltz, Jennifer, and Nicholas Riccardi. 2023. “How Election Lies, Libel Law Were Key to Fox Defamation Suit.” AP News, April 18, 2023. https://apnews.com/article/fox-news-dominion-lawsuit-trial-explainer-trump-fbd401a951905879d837a8860b3bec5e.
Shapiro, Ari. 2015. “On Libel And The Law, U.S. And U.K. Go Separate Ways.” NPR, March 21, 2015. https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/03/21/394273902/on-libel-and-the-law-u-s-and-u-k-go-separate-ways.
“The Ongoing Challenge to Define Free Speech.” Accessed October 6, 2023. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/the-ongoing-challenge-to-define-free-speech/the-ongoing-challenge-to-define-free-speech/.
“UK: Journalist’s Victory in Libel Case Endorses Media Freedom.” 2022. Article 19. June 13, 2022. https://www.article19.org/resources/uk-journalists-victory-endorses-media-freedom/.
Early American history was characterized by hostility to the common law of seditious libel, which restricted political speech. Legal objections sought to restrict the law's oppressive implementation, as in the Zenger case in 1735 (Rabban 1985, 799). English authors like Trenchard and Gordon (under the alias Cato) defended the truth and disregarded the notion that language's "bad tendency" might be used as a form of seditious libel (Rabban 1985, 799). Theoretical defenses of free speech highlighted its importance in limiting governmental authority and fostering good governance. The notion that free speech and the press were necessary for a free society and individual liberty was well-known in both America and England (Rabban 1985, 802). These ideas about the right to free speech were prevalent even before the Sedition Act of 1798 and had a significant impact on how the First Amendment was interpreted (Rabban 1985, 802).
Early cases like the Bradford case (1694) added to the Zenger case’s questioning of the common law's long-standing definition of seditious libel. They brought up arguments that the jury should decide whether a publication was seditious and challenged the notion that true remarks might constitute libel (Rabban and Levy 1985). This demonstrated the widespread resistance to the idea of seditious libel in eighteenth-century England and colonial America. Levy however find that these early cases and thinkers such as Cato did not go far enough in their libertarianism regarding Freedom of the Press (Rabban 1985, 802).
These arguments were accompanied by theoretical defenses of political expression rights. Different individuals asserted that freedom of speech and the press were crucial for limiting governmental power and upholding a free society, both in England and the American colonies. There is a grand shift between freedom of expression, seditious libel, and freedom of the press before and after the American Revolution (Rabban 1985, 804). The press enjoyed less actual freedom in the years leading up to the American Revolution than it did during the majority of the colonial period. Speaking out against the cause of the Revolution was silenced by those in favor of independence, which curbed freedom of expression (Rabban 1985, 805). Following the Revolution, many states continued to pursue seditious libel cases, and grand juries were more inclined to recommend indictments—especially in light of the Sedition Act of 1798. Seditious libel was not often challenged by libel victims in this era (Rabban 1985, 805).
However, in modern-day America, most restrictions of freedom of expression, including that of the press, are limited. Slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, violation of copyright, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, public safety, and perjury are examples of common restrictions on the press. Outside of that, there are no other limits on the Press (Cornell Legal Information Institute). However, 57% of U.S. journalists are either extremely or very concerned about the freedom of the press as of 2023 (Pew Research 2023). More than 50 journalists were arrested or jailed in the US in 2021 while performing their jobs (Freedom Tracker). In 2022, reporters covering the school shooting in Uvalde were threatened with arrest, as well as prevented access from reporting in certain areas (Hernández and Farhi 2022). Journalists have been on high alert regarding potential future suppression of media in the U.S.
Meanwhile, in the United Kingdom, the print media tends to act mostly self-regulatory and functions without many statutory restrictions. Everyone including the media has the right to freedom of expression in the UK, according to the Human Rights Act (HRA). However, this right "may be subject to formalities, conditions, restrictions, or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society." (Murray et al. 2022). However, libel in the UK functions differently in the US for the press. Britain actually has stricter regulations on freedom of the press. Since the country's libel rules have historically made suing for libel an easy pursuit, oligarchs and other wealthy foreigners and businesses have utilized British courts to sue journalists for news they don't like (Global Campaign for Free Expression 2023). It is far easier to sue these journalists in the UK. In contrast to the US' constitutional tradition, laws in the UK penalizes speech critical of public officials. The UK allows for greater ability to protect one’s public image and reputation (Global Campaign for Free Expression 2023). In comparison to the aforementioned libel cases in the US, the limits of the media are far stricter.
In conclusion, there is a complicated and developing narrative to be found in the history of press freedom and early American democracy. The harsh use of seditious libel laws was vigorously resisted in early American history, with examples like the Zenger trial questioning accepted notions of libel. The theoretical foundations of free speech as a defense against excessive political power were well-established, laying the groundwork for the First Amendment's interpretation.
While there are certain limitations on the freedom of speech and the press in modern America, they are often only applicable to situations involving slander, obscenity, provocation, and issues related to public safety. However, recent instances of journalists receiving threats, being detained, and having their access restricted underscore growing worries about press freedom in the United States. The UK's libel rules albeit more relaxed have had a history of being exploited by companies upset by the media.
The appropriate balance to strike in this dynamic environment between defending free speech and attending to valid concerns is still up for discussion. It is clear that while the concepts of free speech are fundamental to democratic societies, how these concepts are actually put into practice can differ greatly, with repercussions for the media, public discourse, and individual liberty. In the ever-changing world, it is crucial to be attentive to defending and upholding the core ideals of freedom of expression and the press as these difficulties are negotiated (Global Campaign for Free Expression 2023).
Bibliography
Cornell Legal Information Institute. “First Amendment.” LII / Legal Information Institute. Accessed September 22, 2023. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment.
Freedom Tracker. “More than 50 Journalists Arrested or Detained While on the Job in the US in 2021.” U.S. Press Freedom Tracker. Accessed September 22, 2023. https://pressfreedomtracker.us/blog/arrests-of-journalists-remain-a-threat-to-a-free-press/.
Global Campaign for Free Expression. 2023. “Media Regulation in the United Kingdom.” September 2023. https://www.article19.org/data/files/pdfs/publications/uk-media-regulation.pdf.
Hernández, Arelis R., and Paul Farhi. 2022. “Journalists in Uvalde Are Stonewalled, Hassled, Threatened with Arrest.” The Washington Post, June 28, 2022. https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2022/06/28/we-were-seen-enemies-journalists-uvalde-threatened-by-police/.
Murray, Calum, Fergus Nolan, Jessica Withey, Joanna Conway, and Katie Major. 2022. “Spotlight: Free Speech and Media Freedom in United Kingdom.” Deloitte Legal, November 21, 2022. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=91802897-644e-4932-b0fc-eea0e84ed037.
Pew Research. 2023. “Most U.S. Journalists Are Concerned about Future Press Freedoms.” Pew Research Center. May 2, 2023. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/05/02/most-u-s-journalists-are-concerned-about-press-freedoms/.
Rabban, David M. 1985. “The Ahistorical Historian: Leonard Levy on Freedom of Expression in Early American History.” Stanford Law Review 37, no. 3 (February): 795-805. https://doi.org/10.2307/1228715.
Within the thirteen colonies before the American Revolution, the government did not allow free press. Rather, any form of print had to have a government granted license. The government's initial opposition to free press stemmed from the printing of the first American newspaper in Boston in [[Probable year:: 1690]] called, Publick Occurrences, Both Foreign and Domestick. The British government wanted to censor American media for fear of the spread of unfavorable information. Following the disallowance of Publick Occurrences, it was 14 years until another American newspaper was published. The governor of Virginia at the time, Sir William Berkeley, wrote, “I thank God, we have not free schools nor printing; and I hope we shall not have these hundred years. For learning has brought disobedience and heresy and sects into the world; and printing has divulged them and libels the government” (Kahane [[Probable year:: 1976]], 203). Likewise, English law strongly opposed freedom of the press.
A major contribution to the shift to a widespread belief in the importance of freedom of the press in the United States was Cato’s Letters, a series of essays written by John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon between [[Probable year:: 1720]] and [[Probable year:: 1723]] (Trenchard & Gordon [[Probable year:: 1724]]) . The essays consisted of revolutionary political ideas that largely criticized the British government. Cato viewed human nature as rooted in selfishness, suggesting that political decisions were too often made in the deciders best interest, not necessarily that of the public. For this reason, Cato emphasized the need for human rights and liberty as a check against the power of officials in order to avoid the oppression of some. He emphasized the need to fight against tyranny and corruption. While acknowledging the risks of libel, he endorsed citizen rights to free speech and free press. He believed that all citizens should have the ability to criticize the government accurately. The alternative- restricting freedom of the press, he suggested, would be beneficial only for the corrupt (McDaniel). Cato wrote, “There are some truths not fit to be told...But this doctrine only holds true as to private and personal failings; and it is quite otherwise when the crimes of men come to affect the publick” (Trenchard & Gordon [[Probable year:: 1724]]) . Cato’s Letters were one of the most familiar essays of time, with people commonly referring to them as a justification and a defense of the rights they deserved, allowing the idea of freedom of the press to gain momentum. The essays were crucial to understanding the importance of and the meaning of the First Amendment, which stemmed from the Virginia Declaration of Rights (Bogen [[Probable year:: 1983]], 446).
Another contributing event was the trial of John Peter Zenger, a printer in New York. In [[Probable year:: 1733]], Zenger printed the New York Weekly Journal. The journal criticized the British royal governor of New York, William S. Cosby, accusing him of rigging elections and other corruption. While Zenger did not write the journal, he was sent to jail and accused of libel, which at the time meant publishing information in opposition to the government. At trial, Zenger was represented by Andrew Hamilton. While Hamilton admitted that Zenger did print the journal, he invoked a new principle, that libel was not punishable if true. Hamilton was able to convince the jury of Zenger’s innocence on the grounds that they could not prove that the content of his publication was false (Kahane [[Probable year:: 1976]], 205). The verdict of the case did not have any serious impact on legal precedent because according to the specifics of the case, the jury ruled that Zenger had not printed the journal, even though Hamilton confessed that much. However, the trial did have the immediate effect of an increase in the amount of political satires printed, specifically those opposed to or critiquing some aspect of the government. This put pressure on less popular officials and increased the relative power of journalists (Olson, [[Probable year:: 2000]]) .
More broadly, as for the world’s first law guaranteeing freedom of the press in Sweden, Sweden’s intellectual climate and institutional structure allowed for the adoption of ideas that were more radical at the time. Within Sweden, as in Western parts of the world, there was a spread of liberal theory. Liberal theory values the individual as necessary within society and politics. Likewise, liberal theory recognizes the need for change over time in order to advance and improve society. In combination with Sweden’s institutional structure, Sweden could more easily advance new laws (Nordin [[Probable year:: 2017]], 139). At the time, the Diet: four estates including the nobility, the clergy, the burghers, and the peasantry, along with opposing political parties: the Hats and the Caps, ran political discussions and had political power. Around sixty percent of adult males would participate in political decisions. The executive, the Council of the Realm, would act according to the Diet. Sweden saw the greatest citizen participation in politics of any country in Europe. Therefore, unlike in other areas of Europe or the world at the time, citizens were more able to advance their own interests, which resulted in greater liberties pertaining to freedom of the press and free speech (Nordin [[Probable year:: 2017]], 140).
Article 31 of the [[Probable year:: 1964]] Afghanistan Constitution states that “every Afghan shall have the right to express thoughts through speech, writing, illustrations as well as other means in accordance with provisions of this constitution” (University of Nebraska, “Constitution of Afghanistan,” [[Probable year:: 1964]]) . Every Afghan shall have the right, according to provisions of law, to print and publish on subjects without prior submission to state authorities. Directives related to the press, radio and television as well as publications and other mass media shall be regulated by law.” This clause is now located in Article 34 of the [[Probable year:: 2004]] Afghanistan Constitution (Constitute Project, “Afghanistan’s Constitution of [[Probable year:: 2004]]” ).
References:
1964 Afghanistan Constitution: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=afghanenglish
2004 Afghanistan Constitution: https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Afghanistan_2004?%20lang=en +
According to Article 197 of the 1928 Fundamental Statute of the Kingdom of Albania: "Freedom of speech and of the press is guaranteed, and a censorship may not be instituted, except in case of war mobilisation or other extraordinary event defined by the law. The regulation of the press, the confiscation of press matter and the prosecution of the press are determined by law."
Article 53 of the [[Probable year:: 1976]] Albanian Constitution states that “citizens enjoy the freedom of speech, the press, organization, association, assembly and public manifestation. The state guarantees the realization of these freedoms, it creates the conditions for them, and makes available the necessary material means” (“The Albanian Constitution of [[Probable year:: 1976]]) .
Today, Part 2, Article 22 of the [[Probable year:: 1998]] Albanian Constitution recognizes freedom of the press, radio, and television as part of its list of “Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms”. Article 22 also states that “Prior censorship of means of communication is prohibited” (Constitute Project, Albania's Constitution of [[Probable year:: 1998]] with Amendments through [[Probable year:: 2012]]” ).
References:
1928 Fundamental Statute of the Kingdom of Albania: https://www.hoelseth.com/royalty/albania/albconst19281201.html
Albania Constitution (1976): https://data.globalcit.eu/NationalDB/docs/ALB%20The%20Constitution%20of%20the%20Peoples%20Socialist%20Republic%20of%20Albania%201976.pdf
Albania Constitution (1998): https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Albania_2016?lang=en. +
Article 19 of the [[Probable year:: 1963]] Algerian Constitution states that “the Republic guarantees freedom of the press and of other means of information, freedom of association, freedom of speech and public intervention, and freedom of assembly” (Middle East Journal, [[Probable year:: 1963]]) .
Today, Article 54 of the Algerian Constitution protects freedom of the press, stating that “freedom of the press, be it written, audiovisual, or on media networks, shall be guaranteed equally for all public and private media outlets. It shall not be restricted by any form of prior censorship” (Constitute Project, “Algeria [[Probable year:: 2020]]” ).
References:
“The Algerian Constitution.” The Middle East journal 17, no. 4 (1963): 446–450.
“Algeria 2020 Constitution.” Constitute. Accessed September 14, 2022. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Algeria_2020?lang=en. +
Article 12 of the [[Probable year:: 1993]] Andorran Constitution states that Freedoms of expression, of communication and of information are guaranteed. The law shall regulate the right of reply, the right of correction and professional secrecy” (Constitute Project, “Andorra’s [[Probable year:: 1993]] Constitution”).
https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Andorra_1993?lang=en. +
Article 35 of the [[Probable year:: 1992]] Constitution marked Angola’s first explicit legal mention of freedom of the press: “Freedom of the press shall be guaranteed and may not be subject to any censorship, especially political, ideological or artistic. The manner of the exercise of freedom of the press and adequate provisions to prevent and punish any abuse thereof shall be regulated by law” (“Constitutional Law of the Republic of Angola [[Probable year:: 1992]]” ).
Today, Article 44 of the [[Probable year:: 2010]] Angolan Constitution maintains that “freedom of the press shall be guaranteed, and may not be subject to prior censorship, namely of a political, ideological or artistic nature” (Constitute Project, “Angola’s [[Probable year:: 2010]] Constitution”).
References:
1992 Angola Constitution: https://constitutionnet.org/sites/default/files/Angola%20Constitution.pdf
2010 Angola Constitution: https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Angola_2010 +
Schedule 1, Chapter II of Antigua and Barbuda’s Constitution titled “Protection of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms of the Individual” explicitly protects freedom of the press (Political Database of the Americas, “The Antigua and Barbuda Constitutional Order [[Probable year:: 1981]]” ).
References:
“Republic of Antigua and Barbuda / República Del Antigua y Barbuda Constitution of 1981 Constituciones De 1981.” Antigua and Barbuda: Constitution, 1981: https://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Antigua/antigua-barbuda.html. +
According to Article 161 of the 1826 Argentina Constitution, "The liberty of publishing his ideas through the medium of
the Press, which is a right as valuable to Man, as it is essential to the preservation of civil liberty, shall be fully guaranteed by the Laws"
Article 32 of the [[Probable year:: 1853]] Argentinian Constitution states that “the Federal Congress shall not enact laws that restrict the freedom of the press or that establish federal jurisdiction over it” (Constitute Project, “Argentina's Constitution of [[Probable year:: 1853]], Reinstated in [[Probable year:: 1983]], with Amendments through [[Probable year:: 1994]]” ).
References:
Constitution of the Argentine Republic, 1826, English translation of the original Constitution of 1826. 956 (2010) Section VIII: General Regulations: https://heinonline-org.proxygw.wrlc.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.cow/zzar0004&id=15&collection=cow&index=
“Argentina 1853 (Reinst. 1983, Rev. 1994) Constitution.” Constitute: https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Argentina_1994?lang=en +
The 1990 Declaration of Independence of Armenia guaranteed freedom of the press. Article 24 of the [[Probable year:: 1995]] Constitution of Armenia asserted freedoms relevant to freedom of the press: "Everyone is entitled to assert his or her opinion. No one shall be forced to retract or change his or her opinion. Everyone is entitled to freedom of speech, including the freedom to seek, receive and disseminate information and ideas through any medium of information, regardless of state borders." After amendment in 2005, additional language relevant to freedom of the press was added to the Constitution of Armenia: "Freedom of mass media and other means of mass information shall be guaranteed. The state shall guarantee the existence and activities of an independent and public radio and television service offering a variety of informational, cultural and entertaining programs." Article 42 of the Constitution of Armenia after amendment in 2015 state the right explicitly: "The freedom of the press, radio, television and other means of information shall be guaranteed. The State shall guarantee the activities of independent public television and radio offering diversity of informational, educational, cultural and entertainment programmes."
References:
Armenian Declaration of Independence: https://www.gov.am/en/independence/
"Constitution of the Republic of Armenia" (1995): http://www.parliament.am/legislation.php?sel=show&ID=2425&lang=eng
"Constitution of the Republic of Armenia (with the Amendments of 27 November 2005)": http://www.parliament.am/legislation.php?sel=show&ID=1&lang=eng
"Amendments to the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia" (2015): http://www.parliament.am/legislation.php?sel=show&ID=5805&lang=eng +
Australia has no formal protection of press freedom in its constitution (Australian Human Rights Commission). Australia’s High Court has ruled that an “implied freedom of political communication exists as an indispensable part of the system of representative government created by the Constitution” in Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Wills ([[Probable year::1992]]), Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v the Commonwealth ([[Probable year::1992]]), and Unions NSW v New South Wales ([[Probable year::2013]]).
References:
“Freedom of Information, Opinion and Expression.” The Australian Human Rights Commission: https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/rights-and-freedoms/freedom-information-opinion-and-expression +
Article 13 of Austria’s [[Probable year:: 1867]] “Basic Law on the General Rights of Nationals in the Kingdoms and Länder represented in the Council of the Realm” states that “Everyone has the right within the limits of the law freely to express his opinion by word of mouth and in writing, print, or pictorial representation. The Press may be neither subjected to censorship nor restricted by the licensing System. Administrative postal distribution vetoes do not apply to inland publication” (Basic Law of 21 December [[Probable year:: 1867]]) .
References:
1867 Basic Law: https://www.servat.unibe.ch/icl/au03000_.html +
Article 50 of the Azerbaijan Constitution of [[Probable year:: 1995]] states “The freedom of mass media is guaranteed. State censorship of mass media, including print media, is forbidden” (Constitute Project, “Azerbaijan's Constitution of [[Probable year:: 1995]] with Amendments through [[Probable year:: 2016]]” ).
References:
“Azerbaijan 1995 (rev. 2016).” Constitute. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Azerbaijan_2016
Blaustein, Albert P., and Gisbert H. Flanz. Constitutions of the Countries of the World; a Series of Updated Texts, Constitutional Chronologies and Annotated Bibliographies. "Azerbaijan Republic, Booklet 2, 1996" Permanent ed. Dobbs Ferry, N.Y: Oceana Publications, 1971. +