Journalism regulation

1. Tia Wray
1-28-15
FYS- Debate
Journalism should not have regulations
The reading is showing the interest of whether or not journalist’s free speech should be
regulated. Many people believe some things wrote in journalism should be regulated because it
causes problems between the United States and other countries. People believe if journalists are
regulated there will not be any future terrorist attacks. American reporters and cartoonists have
been captured and killed due to some of the things written or reported to the media. Some believe
if journalists have a regulation on what they can and cannot write, no more killings will occur in
the future. Most of Americans argue that most problems that has risen between the United States
and other countries is due to things American reporters and journalist talk about in the news.
Some people feel Americans cause a lot of the problems that the United States is faced with
today.
While some people like to blame the United States’ government, many believe journalists
should be self-regulated. Many people argue that problems that come into place due to things
published should be blamed on the journalist who wrote the offensive words. The journalists
should have to handle the consequences on their own. The United States as a whole should not
have to suffer because of words wrote by journalists. Some people believe that there should not
be a regulation because writers should control what they write without someone telling them to
do so.
The House of Representatives passed a bill that allowed the military and security
agencies the right to greater access to Americans’ online activity. Obama’s administration said

2. they would veto the bill if it made its way to the President’s desk. Democratic societies believe
the bill is a violation of privacy and free speech rights. The Democratic Party is all for no
regulations and they don’t feel that there is a need for regulations on journalism.
The first amendment clearly states everyone has the right to freedom of speech and
press. The Oxford English Dictionary defines free speech as the freedom to express one’s
opinions without censorship or legal penalty. Journalist should not be limited to what they can
write based on irrational fears. Everyone should be allowed to write what is on their mind and if
the consequences are bad, then they should have to handle it on their own. Events that we see on
television and stories we read in newspapers and blogs deserve to be talked about. The nation as
a whole should know what is going on with the rest of world, just like other countries know what
is going on in the United States. Terrorist attack for many reasons not just because their country
is in our news. If people are offensive of what is reported, then they should not read it or ignore
the comments made. Not all situations should be taken personally and cause a possible life or
death threat. Jenny S. Bossaller wrote an article saying, “American law is unique due to its
protection of hate speech.” Later in the article she writes, “There is no such thing as hate
speech.” Bossaller’s article gives an example of hate speech to create a paradox, as she states in
the article. Anupam Chander wrote in his article, “the first amendment played in configuring the
law of cyberspace.” It is against the law for government officials to listen to our phone calls or
track or internet activities. But why is the government improving new ways to keep track of
people and why it is still allowed? I understand 9/11 caused the government to become more
cautious, but invading citizen’s privacy is not necessary. The government should pay more
attention to who they let come to the United States and try harder to insure the safety of
America’s safety. Paul Wragg wrote in his article, strict principles can be applied when a

3. journalist’s right to speak is threatened because the media exercise a valuable public role.”
Journalist should be allowed to self-regulate their own work. They should not have to report to
anyone to make sure they can or cannot publish their work. People are allowed to change
information whether it is accurate or not on Wikipedia and that is completely legal. Bloggers are
allowed to drag a celebrity’s name through the mud and that is completely legal. Even reports
about the President and Congress are allowed to be printed and talked about in the media. If
journalist that are reporting events that are currently happening in the world should be regulated,
then bloggers should be regulated too. “The press has a responsibility to inform and enlighten
citizens of what their government is doing,” written by Virginia Held. What would the world be
like if we didn’t have reports about what is happening around us? Most of our news reports are
reported from other countries and compare and contrast how their actions affect us. Just like
other countries hear news report about the United States and how our actions compare and differ
from their country. Journalists and reporters are under a lot pressure when it comes to their line
of way. Recently the release of a movie was not allowed because of the contents. The movie
“The Interview” was not allowed to be released in theaters because the North Korean leader was
killed. The United States was afraid that if the movie was released in the theaters a war with
North Korea would occur. The movie was created as a comedy not a subliminal message that the
United States was going to attack Korea or kill the Korean leader. The movie was taken out of
context and now they are trying to do the same with journalist and news reporters. Leslie Cooper
Mahaffey wrote in her article, “The overwhelming weight of first amendment doctrine suggests
the application of the free speech clause should be case specific. The Court should adopt a
similarly contextual approach when choosing how and whether to apply the government speech
doctrine.

4. Works Cited:
Bossaller, J. S., & Budd, J. M. (2015). What We Talk about When We Talk about Free
Speech. Library Quarterly, 85(1), 26-44.
Chander, A., & Lê, U. P. (2015). Free Speech. Iowa Law Review, 100(2), 501-549.
Wragg, P. (2009). 'Free Speech is not Valued if only Valued Speech is Free': Connolly,
Consistency and some Article 10 Concerns. European Public Law, 15(1), 111-131.
Held, V. (1984). Free Expression. Society, 21(6), 49-56.
Mahaffey, L. C. (2011). "THERE IS SOMETHING UNIQUE . . . ABOUT THE
GOVERNMENT FUNDING OF THE ARTS FOR FIRST AMENDMENT
PURPOSES": AN INSTITUTIONAL APPROACH TO GRANTING GOVERNMENT
ENTITIES FREE SPEECH RIGHTS. Duke Law Journal, 60(5), 1239-1283.