FYS Information Literacy Paper 30 Jan 2015

1. Shelby Ard
Debate Research Paper
Dr. Harold Blanco
30 Jan 2015
Works Cited:
Packer, Cathy. "Speech Rights In America: The First Amendment, Democracy, And The
Media."Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 84.1 (2007): 200-201. Academic
Search Premier. Web. 29 Jan. 2015.
Sambrook, Richard. "Regulation, Responsibility And The Case Against
Censorship." Index On Censorship 35.1 (2006): 166-172. Academic Search Premier.
Web. 29 Jan. 2015.
HOSKINS, ANDREW, and BEN O'LOUGHLIN. "Security Journalism And ‘The
Mainstream’ In Britain Since 7/7: Translating Terror But Inciting
Violence?." International Affairs 86.4 (2010): 903-924. Academic Search Premier. Web.
29 Jan. 2015.
.
Gadarian, Shana Kushner. "The Politics Of Threat: How Terrorism News Shapes Foreign
Policy Attitudes." Journal Of Politics 72.2 (2010): 469-483. Academic Search Premier.
Web. 29 Jan. 2015.
64 Fed. Comm. L.J. 477. (May, 2012 ): 7257 words. LexisNexis Academic. Web. Date
Accessed: 2015/01/30.

2. Shelby Ard
Debate Research Paper
Dr. Harold Blanco
30 Jan 2015
The Case for Regulation of Free Speech in Journalism
The First Amendment has been the subject of much debate and controversy. It is
within the text of this passage of the U.S. Constitution that gives Americans a select few
freedoms, but what is arguably the most important is the Freedom of Speech and the
Press. Journalism has and will continue to be a fundamental, and essential, part of our
everyday lives. We depend on journalist of all types to hear what is going on all around
us, from our local towns to a country on the other side of the planet. News reporting has
never been more essential than it is now.
Security journalism is a little recognized niche of a wide variety of fields, very
much overshadowed by military and war reporting. The brave journalists here are tasked
with researching national security, and are one line of defense on the war on terror. While
complete freedom of the press is always the ultimate goal in any free society, it could
lead to some big problems if all secrets are suddenly out in the open for anyone to view.
Of course it doesn’t always have to mean that it’s secrets that are getting published. Often
times it’s what doesn’t get published that can be just as dangerous. Sometimes a minor,
but different translation can skew an entire story one way or another.

3. Shelby Ard
Debate Research Paper
Dr. Harold Blanco
30 Jan 2015
Terrorism is the reason that governments use to justify regulating what journalists
can research, and what the news outlets can pump out to eager viewers. Who ever
controls the media controls what information makes it around the world, and that’s a
powerful, powerful, thing. The attack on the World Trade Center in New York City back
in 2001 forever changed the playing field for journalism and media reporting around the
globe. From that day on Americans were glued to the news outlets.
There’s little doubt the images of the towers coming down and the middle
easterners we deemed responsible flashing across the screens of millions sent everyone’s
patriotic levels skyrocketing. This was no accident. By using the media to show us the
wreckage and havoc, the government played on the emotions of the people during a no
doubt difficult time to their advantage. This is a little discussed but much explored tactic
that hinges on showing the populace threatening “terroristic” images in order to increase
support for hawkish (or militarily-inclined) foreign policy (Gadarian 2010) While some
may not consider this censorship per se this is no doubt a form of regulation, if not
downright manipulation.
But this is supposed to be in support of journalist’s freedoms being regulated,
perhaps by their own government. In November 2010 Julian Assange published
thousands of classified documents belonging to the U.S. State Department. The resulting
actions from congress gave us the SHIELD Act. What this act did was amend the
Espionage Act of 1917, thus making it a crime to publish any classified information

4. Shelby Ard
Debate Research Paper
Dr. Harold Blanco
30 Jan 2015
concerning American Intelligence or anything regarding undercover informants. (Stone
2012)
By introducing legislation such as this the United States Government has
effectively slashed the amount of information security journalists are able to publish, but
another side to this is that, while it does keep the information from the American (and
thus the world) public, it also keeps it out of the hand of those that would do us harm.
It is essential for the US to perform check of it’s infrastructure and security and
such, and thousands of such reports are available in the public domain. But what if
something major were detected? For example, a check of the electrical grid revealed key
vulnerability points, an attack to which would cause serious damage to more than just our
homes. Certainly the public has the right to know that such information is known, but
knowing every detail could give a terrorist all the information he or she needs to carry out
an attack. By merely keeping key details out of some reports, threats can be greatly
reduced. It’s also possible that messages are being carried out in the open, and only a
slight change in the wording, or a small retraction could make a world of difference.
These are just a couple of reasons that the powers are already in place to impose
a limit on the ability of journalists to publish information. By having the ability to say
“it’s to dangerous for you to publish that” or “that’s a bit too much information” is just
one step that our government is taking to keep everyone of us safe from the ever-present
threat of terrorism.