Comments on: World Not United On Free Press Importance

By: Dave Schuler

Dave Schuler — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 02:08:43 +0000

Some time ago I read the constitutions of all of the Gulf States. It might surprise you under the circumstances that nearly all had substantial guarantees of freedom of speech and of the press. But nearly all had a handy little phrase attached to the guarantee: “except as provided by law”.

By: Dave Schuler

Dave Schuler — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 02:06:34 +0000

There’s a problem with these statistics, Joe: freedom of the press is defined differently in different countries. Very few countries, even those we wouldn’t hesitate to characterize as free, have as free a press as we do. In the UK, for example, the government can restrict publication of damaging secrets and the libel laws different than they are here.

My guess is that if the question were re-phrased to describe the situation with the press here even fewer people would be enthusiastic about it.

By: G. Hendricks

G. Hendricks — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:50:38 +0000

I am always in favor of freedom of speech, and if I were president the only exceptions to freedom of speech I would allow would be re: national security. But other than that, I am totally anti-censorship and pro-freedom of speech, and all things incumbent with that freedom.

By: Lynx

Lynx — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 16:30:14 +0000

The question creates a false dichotomy, IMHO. The implication is that freedom of the press destabilizes countries and that stabilizing countries requires control (read: censorship) of the press. I’m sure that reporting certain things can certainly destabilize a country, but I’m SURE that a country that doesn’t have free press cannot succeed in the long run, since without the public spotlight corruption and abuse runs amok.

Freedom of the press and freedom of expression is not only good, it’s essential for a functioning society. It should extend as far as it possibly can, leaving only the bare minimum necessary for safety (like missile secrets, or identities of secret agents..ejem) out of bounds. Strict controls should be in place to ensure that the term “State Secret” does not get to be applied to anything inconvenient for the government.

The one area where regulation could be justifiable in the interest of stability is in journalistic honesty. You should be allowed to report virtually anything true, but be held responsible if you make things up, most especially if it’s things that destabilize the nation.

By: bellisaurius

bellisaurius — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 16:20:16 +0000

To be fair, some of those lower countries have centrifugal forces that are tending to pull them apart (if not active, militaristic opposition). A more independent press in the short term could concevably act as the last straw. Let’s not forget that without order, people suffer quite a bit.

That said, for all the bellyaching people do about our press, it’s nice to see that most of us value some version of the truth.