Save your places in any Libertary books.
Just Log in or register - it's free and easy!

Unoriginal Misunderstanding

Press Freedom in Early America and Interpretation of the First Amendment

Unoriginal Misunderstanding - Conclusion - History and First Amendment Jurisprudence - Page 125

press freedom—absence of prior restraint, but with publishers and writers liable for “abuse” of press freedom, such as seditious, scandalous, blasphemous or indecent libel or other types of writing with a “bad tendency.” The opinion explained:

No state of society would be more deplorable than that which would admit an indiscriminate right in every citizen to arraign the conduct of every other, before the public, in newspapers, handbills or other modes of publication, not only for crimes, but for faults, foibles, deformities of mind or person, even admitting all such allegations to be true.[275]

Thus newspapers had no business reporting even true allegations that a public establishment helped a customer drink himself to death. The court made clear that anyone who published exposes or criticisms, whether true or false, of government officials, business activities, or other events of public importance, could be subject to criminal prosecution without violating press freedom. This rule, applied in today’s context, would allow criminalization of reporting about any sort of private misconduct, for example, sale of unsafe products or financial corruption in banks and investment firms.

The Blanding opinion went on to announce restrictions on press freedom that have never been imposed in American society, and would sharply curtail the role of news reports in public life. Reports of wrongdoing by a business or other type of organization would be criminal unless directed only to the owners of the organization or someone with legal responsibility for it. Complaints in court were only to be used for purposes of the court proceedings and not reported publicly.[276]  A news report of a court case, for example, might constitute “a promiscuous promulgation of the same facts” that would be punishable as a criminal libel.[277]  The Blanding court did recognize that freedom of the press would protect some degree of criticism of public officials and candidates

 


[275]. Blanding, 20 Mass. at 312 -13.

[276] Id.,   314-17

[277] Id., at 317

Page Number: 
125
About Booktrope | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | FAQ © 2010 Booktrope