What are limits to freedom of the press?

Answer 1

You can't defame someone, and you can't excite immediate unlawful activity.

Answer 2

Libel, at common law, is the publication of written words, or images, or a combination of both, that expressly or impliedly, through innuendo, inducement or with colloquium (legal terms of art) communicates information about an entity that tends to place it in a bad light with others. The entity must be proven to have thereby accrued a qualifiable or quantifiable diminution in its prestige. These elements must be present without the additional element of the defendant having the defense that the information communicated is true. Modernly, defamation and libel sound in tort (that is, they are civil wrongs).

The distinction between defamation and libel in U.S. law arises from the enduring quality of the communication. This is a distinction that has become attenuated due to the technology of and presence of recording methods and methods of distribution of defamatory materials. Thus, libel may be considered a subset of defamation.

Press libel in the U.S., however, is subject to a higher standard. This arises from the landmark Supreme Court of the United States case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 264 (1964), which established the actual malice standard for elements of the press or media for press libel. This requires, on the part of the press entity, actual "knowledge that the information was false" that was published with "reckless disregard [as to] whether it was false or not". This coincides with a grossly negligent disregard for, and lack of, adherence to journalistic ethics.

Therefore, if a plaintiff can prove actual malice, then on the elements, it could theoretically prevail in a libel lawsuit against a press entity. This law combines to make U.S. defamation law in the area of press libel much less facilitative to a plaintiff than in many other common-law jurisdictions.

Therefore, even the publication of the Pentagon Papers or the Iraq and Afghanistan War databases have been shielded by this doctrine as to the press entities, because of the obvious authenticity of the sources (that is, as to truth of the information).

Distinguish these from acts, omissions and the resultant liabilities sounding in the law of treason and espionage against the state as to the purveyors of these types of information to the media.

Philosophical Opinion:Only the willingness to be limited can limit freedom. There are those who would rather die by execution than limit their right to speak freely or print their ideas freely. There are others who have no problem at all in limiting their right and indeed, in a polite society we the people limit our right to speak freely on a daily basis. Our boss or supervisor may be a real *#@$!, but it is prudent to limit that idea to our deepest unshared thoughts and avoid freely speaking this opinion any where near our boss. We the people may have a right to know, but if the media chose to ignore Brittany's most recent scandal, chose to not print the tragic battle with cancer some celebrity is struggling with, chose to not report the constant failures of humanity for just one week and instead chose to cover the great scientific breakthroughs of this age, chose to print the success stories of politicians, police and Sheriff's, and Captains of Industry, and chose to report on the great success of humanity, they probably wouldn't sell many newspapers but it wouldn't be because they abrogated or derogated the right of the people to know what Brittany is doing and if Patrick Swayze is really dying and how more and more business are failing and how very, very, afraid we all should be. The news media can and often does limit itself, and we the people can and often do, limit ourselves. This is how it works. Even at the point of a gun, if we choose to limit our freedom of speech and surrender to the fear of death, this is the choice we make and the limitation was not from the point of the gun, but from the view point facing that gun. Those willing to deal with the consequences of speaking freely will have to deal with the consequences, those who disdain the messy consequences of speaking freely will actively limit their own speech. If a piece of legislation could do it, then people today wouldn't be using illicit drugs, they wouldn't pay for prostitution, they wouldn't jay-walk, they wouldn't drive while talking on their cell phones. People who don't jay walk, don't do it because a piece of legislation limited their freedom of movement, they themselves accepted the limitation and thus, they do not jay-walk.

Answer 3

The doctrines are both rather complicated, but generally some of the limitations are: obscenity, defamation, the prohibition on shouting fire in a crowded theater, the prohibition on threats of violence, and copyright.
the goverment may censor the press in the intersest of natonal and military security