Freedom of Speech and Press

Freedom of Speech and Press
Name
Institution
Freedom of Speech and Press
For many years, the United Sates has prided herself as “The Land of the Free.” This self-aggrandizement is inspired by the Declaration of Independence that affords equality to all Americans, and the Constitution, which protects people’s individual liberties. Among the privileges provided by the Constitution are the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press. Of specific significance is the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which in part states that “Congress shall pass no laws restricting the freedom of speech, or of press.” The clause prohibits the government from any attempts to restrict or influence the publishing and distribution of information or opinions. Under this provision, individual citizens and mainstream journalism are free to express and share opinions through diverse platforms such as the print (newspapers, pamphlets) and electronic (radio, T.V) media. It is through these legal protections of the freedom of speech and of the press that the U.S. is regarded one of the freest nations is the world. However, today’s journalism and media reportage is not just about the mere sharing of information, but most central to its survival, sharing information that grabs the audience’s attention. Consequently, news reportage tends to favor sensational and scandal news as a way of attracting a larger audience and surviving the competition. This essay analyzes the state of freedom of the press in the U.S. today and the implications of tending towards sensitive and controversial issues. In particular, the essay will examine the nature of journalism in the 21st century and its place in the American society in relation to the First Amendment. Finally, the paper will examine social-political implications of favoring sensitive and controversial issues in the mass media.
Without doubt, the technological revolutions of the 21st century have, in a very significant way, transformed the manner in which speech and information are shared and exchanged, especially in the electronic media. Whereas newspapers were the backbone of mass media in the 20th century, advancements in information technology in the 21st century has led to a shift toward Internet-based platforms for accessing and sharing information. Due to their convenience (e.g. accessible through mobile phones)and personalized platforms they offer, social networking sites like Twitter, Facebook, Yahoo, Youtube, and blogs, have replaced newspapers and TV as the preferred sources of information. These channels differ from the traditional media in terms of regulation, responsibility, and accountability over published and shared information. Whereas traditional news outlets are subject to an ethical code of practice and legal suits in case of misconduct, bloggers and other social networking forums seem to have a field day. This is largely due to the fact that bloggers and social networking sites are a recent invention, whose role the drafters of the Constitution could not have anticipated more than two centuries ago. In this regard, the issue of freedom of the press is debatable as far as blogs and other informal channels of mass media are concerned. The pertinent question is whether the freedom of the press as stated in the Constitution extends to publishing and sharing opinions in blogs, Facebook, Twitter, and other Internet-based forums. When the drafters of the First Amendment sought to protect the freedom of the press, what they had in mind, apparently, were newspaper outlets, TV and radio broadcasts, which were the major instruments of mass media in existence at that time. It is debatable, therefore, whether bloggers and individuals who post news updates or personal opinions on social media like Twitter and Facebook are protected under the Constitution, considering that these tools were not in use when the First Amendment was passed. Dick Durbin, the Illinois Senator, raised this issue during an appearance on Fox News Sunday in May 26 this year. The Senator posed the question:
What is a journalist today in 2013? We know it’s someone that works for Fox or AP, but does it include a blogger? Does it include someone who is tweeting? Are these people journalists and entitled to constitutional protection? We need to ask 21st century questions about a provision in our Constitution that was written over 200 years ago (Mataconis, 2013).
Nevertheless, it can be easily argued that if the Constitution does not recognize this type of press, then the clause on freedom of speech gives them protection. This is because the point that Senator Durbin misses is on the entity to which the First Amendment ...