Bachelor of Journalism & Mass communication, Media Evolution & Trend, Freedom & Restraints

1. Freedoms and Restrains
Historically the origin offreedoms enjoyed by themedia, more
popularlyknown as ‘freedom ofthepress’ originated in
England. From theearliest times in theWest persecution for
expression ofopinions was common particularlyin matters
relating to science and philosophysince theycame into direct
conflict with the authorityoftheChurch. Wehave the instance
of copies of thebiblebeing chained to library shelves to
prevent thespread of its ideas among thepeople. Later, we
heard ofpeoplelike Copernicus and Galileo being persecuted
since they propoundedtheories that challenged theidea
propagated bythe Church.
In 1530, Copernicus completed and gave to the world his great
workDe Revolutionibus, which asserted that theearth rotated
on its axis once daily and traveled around thesun onceyearly: a
fantasticconcept for the times. Up to the timeofCopernicus
the thinkers ofthe western world believed in thePtolemiac
theory that theuniversewas a closed space bounded bya
spherical envelope beyond which there was nothing.
Man, it was believed (and still believed by some) was madeby
God in His image, man was thenext thing to God, and, as
such, superior, especially in his best part, his soul, to all
creatures, indeed this part was not even part of the natural
world (a philosophywhich has proved disastrous to theearth’s
environment as anycasual observerof the 20th century might
confirm by simplylooking about). Two otherItalian scientists
of thetime, Galileo and Bruno, embraced theCopernican
theory unreservedlyand as a result suffered much personal
injuryat the hands ofthepowerful church inquisitors.
Giordano Bruno had theaudacityto even go beyond
Copernicus, and, dared to suggest, that spacewas boundless
and that the sun was and its planets were but oneof any
numberofsimilarsystems: Why! — there even might beother
inhabited worlds with rational beingsequal orpossiblysuperior
to ourselves. For such blasphemy, Brunowas tried beforethe
Inquisition, condemned and burnedat thestake in 1600.
Galileo was brought forward in 1633, and, there, in front of his
“betters,” hewas, underthethreat oftortureand death, forced
to his knees to renounceall belief in Copernican theories, and
was thereafter sentenced to imprisonment fortheremainderof
his days.
The usual charges for suppressingunconventional thinkingwas
to describe it as heresy, corruption ofthe youth orsedition.
Such restraints through licensing and censorship came to be
accentuated after theinvention oftheprinting press in the 15th
century and theappearance of newspapers in the17th century.
Shortlythereafter, newspapers cameto take up thecause of the
opposition against monarchical absolutism. Oppositionto
governmental interference was supported bylogical arguments
set out byJohn Milton’s Aeropagitica(1644). Milton said that
free men must havetheliberty to know, to utterand to argue
freely according to conscience. Anyform of censorship was
intolerable, whetherimposed byaroyal decree or by legislation.
Aeropagiticawas in fact addressed to theLong Parliament which
had taken up theissueof licensing after the abolition ofthe
Star Chamber. It was as a result ofsuch agitation that the
Licensing Act of1662 was eventuallyrefused to bereviewed by
the HouseofCommonsin 1694. Thefreedom of thepress
thus began in England as a triumph ofthepeopleagainst the
powerof licence. What developed subsequentlywas the
freedom ofthe press as described in thewords ofDicey, “The
liberty of thepress consists in printing without anyprevious

2. licence, subject to the consequence of thelaw.”
Freedom ofthe press thus came to be symbolised bythe
absence ofprior restraint. This concept had its origin in the fact
that until 1695an annual Licensing Act existed which was first
passed in 1661 and which prohibited theprinting ofany
literature without licence from the crown or its agent. It was
against this system that thedoctrine offreedom of the press
was asserted. Parliament allowed theLicensing Act to expire
following theagitation in favouroffreedom ofexpression. It
has been summarised by18th centuryconstitutional expert
William Blackstone: “Everyfree man has an undoubted right to
lay what sentiments hepleases before thepublic; to forbid this
is to destroythe freedom ofthe press, but ifhe publishes what
is improper, ormischievous orillegal, hemust takethe
consequence of his own temerity.”
What exactly was meant byfreedom ofthe press was not
specified but obviouslyit was held to be similarto theidea held
in Britain i.e. absence of prior restraint. According to the
Commissionon Freedom ofPress in USA, “ Theprimary
suggestion oftheterm freedom is a negativeone, theabsence
of external interference whetherto suppress orto constrain. To
be free is essential to be free from something – somearbitrary
impediments to acti9on, somedominating powerorauthority.
But since freedom is for action, and action is for an end, the
‘positive’ kernel of freedom lies in the abilityto achieve theend,
and to be free means to be free for someaccomplishment. And
this implies commandofthemeans to achieve that end.”
A free press is free for theexpression of opinion in all its
phases. It is free for theachievement of thosegoals ofpress
service on which its own ideas and the requirements ofthe
communitycombineand which existing techniques make
possible. Fortheseends it must havefull command of
technical resources, financial strength, reasonableaccess to
sources of informationat homeand abroad, and thenecessary
facilities for bringing that information to thenational market.
The US Position
Anydiscussion offreedom ofthe press must distinguish
freedom in fact from legal freedom. Theprinciple of freedom
of thepress as a constraint on government actions against the
press can differ from theamount offreedom thepress actuallyexercises at a given time. On the onehand, various social,
political, and economicforces mayserve to makethe press freer
in fact than it is in law. Conversely, thosesameforces may
substantiallycurtail theexercise of a legal freedom.
This article addresses onlythedevelopment oftheprinciple of
freedom ofthe press, according to which government control
of thepress is subject to political, legal, or constitutional
constraints greater than thoseapplicable to otherforms of
government action. In this senseoffreedom of thepress, the
principle in theUnited States evolved from English thought.
Anticensorship themes had been sounded earlyin the seventeenth
century. Although Miltonargued onlyforeliminationof
licensing in advance of publication and did not object to
prosecution thereafter, and although thefreedom headvocated
did not extend to Catholics and others he viewed as beyond the
pale, his eloquent objection to what we now call “priorrestraint”
has had lasting influence.
English pleas forfreedom ofthe press increased in theearly
part ofthe eighteenth century. Among themost prominent
were John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon’spseudonymous
Cato’s Letters, which went beyond Milton in arguing against
prosecutions forseditious and criminal libel as well as against
licensing. These and similarwritings had great influence in the
colonies, and the arguments exemplifiedbyCato’s Letters

3. surrounded thetrial in 1735 ofJohn Peter Zenger, the most
important colonial precursorto later American developments.
Zengerwas thepublisheroftheNew YorkWeekly Journal,
which had printed harsh criticisms of GovernorWilliam Cosby
of theProvince of New York. Zengerwas prosecuted for
seditious libel, and consistent with thelaw at the timethejury
was instructed to considernot whetherthe workwas actually
seditious (an issuethen considered amatterof law for the
judgeand not oneof fact for the jury) but onlythequestions
of whetherZengerhad published theworkand whetherit
referred to Cosby. Nevertheless, thejury disregarded these
limitations and acquitted Zenger. That acquittal represented the
assertion ofpopularpoweragainst themonarchy, in contrast to
the modern understanding offreedom ofthepress as
protection against popularcontrol as much as against particular
government officials.
Against this background thereremains controversyabout the
intention underlyingtheFirst Amendment, which provides
that “Congress shall makeno law ... abridging thefreedom of
speech, or of the press.” Although acommon understanding
takes this to embodyan intention to eliminatethelaw of
seditious libel, thereis strong evidence that theamendment (as
well as similarprovisions in various stateconstitutions) was
intended to embodytheMiltonianidea, also found in
Blackstone’s Commentaries, that onlypriorrestraints like
licensing were to be prohibited, with prosecutions forseditious
libel untouched bythenew Bill ofRights.
As a matterofconstitutional law, theseissues werenot settled
until well into thetwentieth century, although political discourse,
as shown bythenegative reaction to and ultimaterepeal
of theSedition Act of 1798, graduallyassimilated theview that
not onlylicensing but also subsequent punishment ofthe
press for criticizing government and its officials were inconsistent
with theview of thepress as an institutionalized counterweight
to government power. This political understanding,
which grew sporadicallythroughout thenineteenth century, was
supported bythedevelopmentofthecommon law privilegeof
fair comment, which substantiallylimited theavailabilityofcivil
libel actions against the press for criticizing gov-ernmental
officials.
Still, it remained possibleforJusticeOliver Wendell Holmes,
Jr., to note as late as 1907 that whethertheFirst Amendment
prohibited anything otherthan aprior restraint remained an
open question. When theSupremeCourt in 1919started to put
teeth into theFirst Amendment, it increasinglyheld that that
protection went far beyond prohibiting priorrestraints. But the
historical legacy remains, forpriorrestraints are the least
justifiableform ofrestriction on thepress. When theCourt in
1931 in Near v. Minnesotaheld impermissiblean injunction
against a defamatoryscandal sheet called the SaturdayPress, it
established avirtually insurmountablelegal standard for
attempts to license thepress or to enjoin publications in
advance. This standard had its most famousapplication in
1971, when in a widely publicized decision (New YorkTimes
Co. v. United States) theSupremeCourt held that government
attempts to restrain thepublication ofthe Pentagon Papers was
constitutionallyimpermissible, despitegovernmentclaims that
publication would impedethemilitary’s efforts in Vietnam, and
despitethefact that the documents then in possession ofthe
New YorkTimes and othernewspapers had been unlawfully
removed from theDefense Department. This case established
the principle that priorrestraints are for all practical purposes
impossibleto justify.
By the timethecase had been decided, however, the press had

4. also become essentiallyfree from subsequent punishment. In
1936 the SupremeCourt struckdown apunitivetax on the
press that LouisianagovernorHueyLong had imposedin
retaliation for criticism. And in 1964, in a case that transformed
the natureof press freedom in the United States, the Court
decided that libel actions based on criticism of publicofficials
(and subsequentlyall publicfigures) could not be maintained
unless theofficial was able to show not onlythat the criticism
was factually false but that it had been publishedwith prior
knowledgeofits falsity. This is such an enormousburden that
the press now is largely free from fear of criminal punishment
or civil liabilitybased on reporting or commentaryon matters
of publicconcern.
As a result, arguments about freedom ofthepress haveturned
away from questions ofpunishment to questions ofpress
privileges and press access. The arguments now commonly
concern whetherjournalists shall beimmunefrom subpoenas
or search warrants seeking to discover the products oftheir
investigation, and whetherthepress shall haveaccess to
government informationnot otherwiseavailableto thepublic.
Although theSupremeCourt has largelyrejected thesearguments
as First Amendmentclaims, thearguments haveoften
persuaded legislatures to enact shield laws, which grant partial
immunities from subpoena, and open meeting orfreedom of
information laws, which givethepress greater access to details
about governmental actions. Although it is inevitablethat thepress will always want moreinformation and thegovernment
will always want to provideless, the current press freedom in
the United States is such that much that happens in government
is morewidelyknown and subject to criticism than
anywhere else in theworld.
Journalism as a Public Trust
Endorsed bySalzburg SeminarSession, 396
Mediaorganisations face a new challenge: that ofglobalisation,
which has brought with it businessconglomerates that control
the Press. The result - profits are given moreimportancethan
journalisticethics and peopleare losing faith in the Fourth
Estate. A recent conference in Salzburg, Austria, brought
togetherjournalists and supporters ofpress freedom to
address theissue.
Mediaunderthreat? A free and independent press is essential to
human liberty.
Salzburg, Austria, March 26, 2002
I. Preamble
THISstatement expresses theconcerns of international
journalists and supporters ofjournalism attending the
Salzburg SeminarSession 396, March 20-27, 2002, in Salzburg,
Austria. Thetopic: Thedecline of thenews media’s roleas a
publictrust and the effects of that phenomenon on its
obligations to civil society. Ourdiscussions revealed that
journalists and theirsupporters from manycountries sharea
strong conviction that market pressures are undermining the
quality ofjournalism; specifically, as news organisations
preserve high profit levels by reducing news gathering resources
and neglecting journalism in thepublicinterest, thefundamental
role of thepress to inform and empowercitizens is
endangered. Theseconcerns are the motivationforthis
statement, which wehopewill prompt furtherconsideration,
discussion and action around theworld. A free and independent
press is essential to human liberty. No peoplecan remain
sovereign without avigorous press that reports thenews,
examines critical issues and encourages a robust exchangeof
ideas. In recognition of the vital role of the press in society,
manycountries extend it special legal protections under

5. constitutions orlegislativelyenacted statutes. Theseprotections
are unique, forthey safeguard print, broadcast and onlinemedia
organisations against government interference and censorship.
Where this special status has been accorded the press, news
organisations havebeen held to a high standard ofpublic
service and publictrust. Over time, this ideal has becomea
bedrock of journalism, an enduring tradition bywhich a free
press has been a powerful force forprogress and informed
citizen participation in society.
Historically, threats to press freedoms havebeen political in
nature. At the start ofthe 21st Century, however, a new kind of
threat emerges that, if continued, will endangerthefreedoms
guaranteed to the press and put at riskthe sovereigntyof the
citizens. The /natureofthe press as a commercial enterprisehas
changed significantly. The emergence of mediaconglomerates
and intensemarket competition are creating new organisational
priorities in which profit growth is replacing publicservice as the
principal mission. Sustaining profit growth often requires
reducing theresources fornews gathering, thereby diminishing
the role ofthe news mediaas a publictrust. Business priorities
are encouraging theblending ofnews and entertainment as a
strategy to build audiences and ratings. This trend, most
noticeable worldwidein television, has led to a reduction in
serious news coverage and maybe responsiblefora decline of
publicconfidence in this medium as an essential source of
information. Finally, ashrinking commitment to bothdomestic
and international news means that news organisations are
missing opportunities to connect peopleand ideas globallyat
the very timetechnologyhas madesuch connections increasingly
possible. This international group ofjournalists and supporters
of press freedom calls on theleaders of news organisations
worldwideto recognisethe need for a wiserbalance between
business goals and public-service responsibilities, and to
reaffirm their commitment to journalism and theroleofa free
press in sustaining human liberty.
II. Concerns About Journalism
We recognise that news organisations function in acompetitive,
multimediaenvironment, and that financial strength is essential
for journalisticexcellence and independence. However, an
unbalanced emphasis on profits and financial growth weakens
the foundation ofjournalism as apublictrust. Weare convinced
that the growing imbalancein thepriority given to the
quality ofjournalism and profit growthultimatelyimpairs
citizens’ ability to participate fullyin theircommunities. We
recognise that neglecting the publicinterest erodes public
support forlegal guarantees of the freedom ofthe press to
report thenews. We conclude that market forces and other
pressures are causing the following problems:
1. For citizens and society: Inadequateaccess to diverse sources
of information. Declinein publicunderstanding ofcurrent
affairs. Decline in citizen participation in communitylife.
Diminishment ofcitizens’ political authority. Improper
confluence of mediaownership and political interests.
2. For journalism content and influence: Decline of diverse and
comprehensivenews produced in thepublicinterest. Neglect
of audiences that are not valued by advertisers.
Compromising ofeditorial integrityforcommercial
purposes. Encroachment ofentertainment intonews
coverage. Shrinking impact of news organisations as
audiences dwindle.
3. For news mediaorganisations: Concentration ofownership
and creation ofmonopolies. Vulnerabilityto theimperatives
of stock markets and otherfinancial interests. Increasing

6. tendency of multimediaconglomerates to usenews
resources to promotecommercial interests.
III. Proposals for Consideration
To address these concerns, we encourage thepress and the
publicto considerthe following suggestions in communities
and situations wheretheymayapply: (1) Encouragediverse
news mediaownership and urgemediacompanies to commit
to providing qualityjournalism to all communities theyserve.
(2) Ensurethat television networks and radio stations provide
quality news programmes as part of their societal obligation to
the publicairwaves. (3) Help citizens evaluate the qualityof the news theyreceive and express their views so that their voices
maybe heard. (4) Use journalism to enhancecitizens’ ability to
participate in communitylife. (5) Call on companies that own
news organisations to: (a) Adoptmissionstatements reflecting
their journalisticvalues and the prioritythey attach to theirrole
as a publictrust. (b) Adopt along-term business strategybased
on producing qualityjournalism. (c) Includejournalists on the
boards ofcompanies that own news organisations. (d) Adopt
professional standards that promotehigh-qualityjournalism.
(e) Compensatenews executives based on thequality of their
company’s journalism ratherthan its financial performance. (6)
Ensurethat entertainment content does not compromisenews
coverage. (7) Keep a clear separation between advertising and
news content. All advertising shouldbeclearly labelled. (8)
Reaffirm journalism values ofaccuracy, fairness and balance; and
maintain theroles of thepress as watchdog and voice for
citizens. (9) Promoteprofessional standards ofexcellence in
journalism education.(10) Fostermediaeducation ofyoung
peoplein schools and through media.
The Salzburg Conference had participants from the following
nations/ regions: Argentina, Armenia, Bosnia, China, Egypt,
European Union, Colombia, Germany, Hungary, India, Israel,
Italy, Latvia, Pakistan, Palestine, Philippines, Saudi Arabia,
South Africa, Spain, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom,
United States ofAmerica, Yugoslavia.
References-
1. Baran and Davis; Mass Communication Theory; (2000); Thomas-Wadsworth
2. Fiske; Introduction to Communication Studies; (1982)
3. Infante, Rance and Womack; Building Communication Theory, 2nd edition; (1993);
4. Berger; Media Analysis Techniques