| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
08 Oct 2004 09:12:59 PM |
| Object: |
Losing Liberty |
http://www.detnews.com/2003/editorial/0311/19/a11-328919.htm
Wednesday, November 19, 2003
Unlike Britain, a free press gives America heat and light
By Ken Paulson / Special to The Detroit News
The current royal scandal has Great Britain's news media playing
connect-the-dots.
A former aide to Prince Charles apparently has alleged that the prince
engaged in sexual activity with another former aide, a charge that has
yet to see print in Great Britain because a court order bars
publication of the story.
Why have Britain's tabloids steered clear of the specific allegations?
It has to do with Great Britain's decidedly different take on press
freedom.
In Great Britain, anyone publishing negative allegations about someone
has to be able to prove those charges in a court of law. This standard
applies whether the plaintiff is a prince or a pauper.
At first glance, this sounds logical and fair. After all, if you
publish a story that harms someone's reputation, shouldn't you have to
back it up? Yet if the United States held the same interpretation of
press freedom, we may never have learned about a certain White House
intern's relationship with President Clinton. It also would have meant
U.S. Rep. Gary Condit's relationship with Chandra Levy would not have
been disclosed.
Beyond sex scandals, it would mean stories about corrupt officials and
violations of the public trust would go unreported until the press had
the confidence and evidence to rival a prosecutor.
In pivotal First Amendment cases, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that
it's in a democracy's best interest to encourage thorough reporting on
the nation's public officials and ensure access to public documents
and meetings.
The First Amendment gives America's press far greater latitude than
those in Great Britain. There's a recognition that the press has a
watchdog role, which includes exploring allegations about public
officials.
This means that, absent an issue of national security, no American
court can tell a newspaper not to publish a story. It also means that,
absent a showing that the newspaper or broadcaster acted recklessly or
with knowledge that the story was false, public officials can't
successfully sue the press.
There's no question that many Americans would see some benefit in
Great Britain's system. Our 1999 State of the First Amendment survey
-- conducted in the wake of the Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky scandal
-- found that a record 53 percent of Americans said there's too much
freedom of the press. While that number subsided to 46 percent this
year, there's little question that many Americans react negatively to
sex and sensationalism in their newscasts.
But imagine the alternative. The court order hasn't dampened public
interest in the Prince Charles incident; it has only fed irresponsible
rumors and reporting on web sites.
Sex scandals involving public officials generate plenty of heat,
wherever they occur. In America, a press that is able to freely
publish information can give us light along with that heat.
The difference between the United States and Great Britain in defining
freedom of the press is a reminder that while other countries --
including our closest allies -- protect core rights, our nation is
singular in the scope of freedoms it embraces and the zeal with which
its courts protect them.
Most Americans also tend to take these freedoms for granted. Our 2003
survey indicates that one American in three believes there's just too
much freedom in the First Amendment.
There's no question that freedom bears some cost, including salacious
reporting, troublesome content on the Internet and unpopular groups
marching down Main Street. But these are mere nuisances to a nation
with the courage to declare that every voice can be heard and every
viewpoint can be published.
Great Britain, one of the world's most free nations, clearly does not
embrace freedom of the press as fully as the United States. At the
other end of the political spectrum, Iraq -- until recently one of the
least free nations -- now hungers for these liberties. In a Gallup
Poll released last week, 98 percent of Baghdad residents said their
nation's new constitution should guarantee freedom of speech.
Our Constitution -- including the Bill of Rights -- has long served as
a model for new democracies. Freedom remains our most important
export.
It's not a coincidence that the world's most powerful and influential
nation is also the most free.
Ken Paulson is executive director of the First Amendment Center in
Nashville, Tenn.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Vote for Bush. Why vote for the lesser of two evils?
No matter the candidates the superstition industry wins.
'Jesus' is a sock-puppet Christians utilize to add 'authority' to
whatever action they intend on taking. -Stoney
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
