A COMPARITIVE STUDYBETWEEN AMERICAN ANDINDIAN PRESS FREEDOMS PRESENTED BY JISHNU KRISHNAN
Absence of statutory and administrative control on spreading of ideas, knowledge and thoughts
• Freedom of the press in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. This clause is generally understood as prohibiting the government from interfering with the printing and distribution of information or opinions, although freedom of the press, like freedom of speech, is subject to some restrictions, such as defamation law and copyright law.
• In India article 19 (1) a speaks about freedom of speech ,expression etc…• There is no special provision for press freedom• Many discussions happened during the framing but later they decided not to specify the word press freedom
• In Lovell v. City of Griffin, Chief Justice Hughes defined the press as, "every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion."This includes everything from newspapers to blogs.
• New York Times Co. v. United States (1971): The Supreme Court upheld the publication of the Pentagon Papers.• New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964): The Supreme Court held that when a publication involves a public figure, in order to support a suit for libel, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the publisher acted with "actual malice," meaning that the publisher knew of the falsity of the statement or acted with reckless disregard as to the truth of the statement.
• In 2009 the United States climbed 16 places from 36th in 2008 with a score of 4.00, with Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Norway and Sweden tied for first place with 0.00 and Eritrea bottom of the list with 115.50.
Notable exceptions• In 1798, not long after the adoption of the Constitution, the governing Federalist Party attempted to stifle criticism by means of the Alien and Sedition Acts.These restrictions on freedom of the press proved very unpopular in the end and worked against the Federalists, leading to the partys eventual demise. Thomas Jefferson was among those who opposed the Acts, and did so vehemently, and he was elected President in the election of 1800. Jefferson then pardoned most of those convicted under the Acts. He made it a principle not to ask what they had done, but only whether they had been charged under the Acts. In his first Inaugural Address in 1801 he reiterated his longstanding commitment to freedom of speech and of the press: "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."
• The Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918, which amended it, imposed restrictions on the free press during wartime. It carried fines of $10,000 and up to 20 years imprisonment for people publishing "... disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States ..." In Schenck v. United States (1919), the Supreme Court upheld the laws, setting the "Clear and present danger" standard. Congress repealed both laws in 1921, and Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) revised the "Clear and present danger" test to the "Imminent lawless action" test, which is less restrictive.
• 1988: Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier: The Supreme Court upheld that the principal of a school has the right to review and block controversial articles of a school paper funded by the school and published in the schools name.
• In the United States in 2005, interpretation of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act may consider political statements as being the equivalent of campaign donations. Because access to Internet statements are weakly controlled, the campaign value of statements is not known in advance and a high ultimate value may trigger large fines for violations. This particularly threatens Internet statements by individuals, and ambiguous definitions of membership in the press make the possible effects ambiguous.
• 2008: Wikileaks was forcefully censored by the United States. Wikileaks was given only hours notice "by email" prior to the hearing. Wikileaks pre-litigation California council Julie Turner attended the start of hearing in a personal capacity but was then asked to leave the court room. After appeal, however, all the courts of appeal threw out the case, restoring access to Wikileaks.•
• 2010: BP collaborates with United States Coast Guard, state law enforcement and local law enforcement officials to prevent the press from properly documenting the Gulf oil spill