Public Law Studies Quarterly

Censorship in the Media: Freedom versus Responsibility with Emphasis on the United States Legal System

Document Type : Article

Authors

Khadijeh Akrami 1
Hoda Ghafari 2
vali Rostami 3

1 Ph.D. Student in Public Law, Department of Public and International Law, Faculty of Law, Theology and Political Science, Islamic Azad University of Science Research Branch, Tehran, Iran

2 ssociate Prof., Department of Public Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Allameh Tabatabaei University, Tehran, Iran

3 Prof., Department of Public Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22059/jplsq.2021.299084.2354
Abstract
Freedom of the media guarantees the right to freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers. However, it is frequently challenged and restricted due to government action. In this research, a descriptive-analytical method has been used to study media censorship as opposed to media freedom by emphasizing media activities in the United States. The question is how to distinguish the prohibition of censorship from the imposition of legitimate restrictions. It is proven that in a democratic society, the media enjoys rights and freedoms but it also has duties and responsibilities. Concepts such as national security, defamation, war, hate speech, and obscene content are considered reasonable basis upon which media freedom can be restricted. In determining media restrictions, the principle is freedom of the media and limitations should be interpreted strictly. Despite the fact that Congress is prohibited from limiting freedom of expression under the First Amendment to the US Constitution, both the federal and state legislators, as well as the US Supreme Court, have sought to impose reasonable restrictions on the media by setting precise criteria. In conclusion, restrictions on freedom of the media in the United States are precisely defined, and such restrictions make the media responsible.

Keywords

censorship
responsibility
right to free access to information
freedom of information

  1. English

    1. A) Books
    2. Brown R. (2016), Defusing hate: a strategic communication guide to counteract dangerous speech, Rep., US Holocaust Memorial Museum, Washington, DC.
    3. Day, N. (2001), Censorship or Freedom of Expression? Minneapolis, MN: Lerner Publication Group.
    4. Jefferson, T. (1803-1807) (Federal Edition), In Ford, P. L. (1904-1905) (Eds.), The works of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. 10, New York, NY: Putnam’s Sons
    5. Nockleby, John T. (2000), "Hate Speech", in Encyclopedia of the American Constitution, ed. Leonard W. Levy and Kenneth L. Karst, Vol. 3, (2nd ed.), Detroit: Macmillan Reference US.
    6. Simons, D. (2006), Central Asian Pocketbook on Freedom of Expression, London, ARTICLE 19.
    7. Stone. R. Geoffrey (2002), The origins of the " bad Tendency" Test: Free speech in Wartime, Chicago: the University of Chicago press.
    8. Waldron, J. (2012), The Harm in Hate Speech, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

     

    1. B) Articles
    2. Bratton, M. )1994), “Civil Society and Political Transition in Afric” Institute for Development Research Reports, Vol.11, No.6,.
    3. Sanjoy R. (2020), "Women Obscenity in India: Social Outlook with Legal Reflection", Journal of Ecology and Natural Resources, Vol. 4, Issue 2.
    4. Soengas, X. (2013), “The role of the internet and social networks in the Arab uprisings – an alternative to official press censorship.” Comunicar, Vol.21, No.41, pp. 147-155.
    5. Stone G. (1994), "Hate speech and the U.S. Constitution", East Eur. Const, Rev, No.3, pp.78–82
    6. Walker, E. (1993) , Defamation Law: Public Figures - Who Are They",Baylor Law Review.
    7. Zoller, E. (2008), "The United States Supreme Court and the Freedom of Expression", Indiana Law Journal, Vol. 84.

     

    1. C) Websites
    2. Murray, Jean (2019), Absolute Privilege as a defense Against a Defamation Claim, (Updated February 13, 2019) https://www.thebalancesmb.com/absolute-privilege-defamation-defense-398111
    3. Council of Europe (1950), Convention for the protection of human Rights and fundamentalfreedoms. Retrieved from http://www.echr.coe.int/ Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf
    4. Newth, M. (2010), The long history of censorship. Retrieved from http://www.beaconforfreedom.org/liste.html?tid=415&art_id=475
    5. Sturges, P. (2015), Regulating the press: Ensuring responsibility, or road to censorship.Retrieved from http://www.beaconforfreedom.org/liste.html? tid=415&art_id=613
    6. Anti-Defamation League ( 2014, May 21), ADL deplores Hitler imagery, anti-Muslim rhetoric in latest bus ads. Retrieved from http://dc.adl.org/news/adl-deplores-hitlerimagery- anti-muslim-rhetoric-in-latest-bus-ads/

     

    1. D) Votes
    2. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395U.S.444 (1969)
    3. Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (1967).
    4. Dennis v. United State, 341 U.S. 494(1951)
    5. Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978)
    6. New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)
    7. Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
    8. Schenck v. United States, 248U.S.47 (1919)
    9. State v. Henry, 302 Ore. 510, 515, 732 P.2d 9 (1987)

     

    Refrences In Persian:

    1. A) Books
    2. Abbasi, Bijan (2011), Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Tehran: Justice Publishing (In Persian).
    3. Ansari, Baqer (2008), Freedom of Information, Tehran: Justice Publications (In Persian).
    4. Bryd, Shanmak (2011), A world of several voices, translated by Iraj Pod, Tehran: Soroush Publications (In Persian).
    5. Casnovo, Jean (2010), Sociology of Mass Media, Baqer Sarukhani, Manouchehr Mohseni, Information Publishing (In Persian).
    6. Christians, Clifford J. (2006), Media Technologies and Theory of Media, (Reflection on Media, Religion & Culture, Stuart M. Hoover, Knut Landby), Tehran. Soroush Publications (In Persian).
    7. Ghadrdan Gharamaleki, Mohammad Hossein (2003), Freedom in jurisprudence and its limits, Qom: Bustan Ketab Institute (In Persian).
    8. Hashemi, Seyed Mohammad (2015), Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Tehran: Mizan Publications (In Persian).
    9. Khosravi, Fariborz (1999), Censorship, Tehran: Nazar Publishing (In Persian).
    10. Motamednejad, Mohammadkazem (2008), Press Law, Vol. 1, Tehran: Office of Media Studies and Development (In Persian).
    11. Qari Sayed Fatemi, Seyed Mohammad (2011). Human Rights in the Contemporary World, Vol. 1, Tehran: Shahr-e-Danesh Publications (In Persian).
    12. Tabatabai, Manouchehr (2003), Public Freedoms and Human Rights, Tehran: Samat Publications (In Persian).

     

    1. B) Articles
    2. Ansari, Baqer (2010), "Review and Critique of the Freedom of Information Bill", Quarterly Journal of Legal Information, Vol.1, (In Persian).
    3. Motamednejad, Mohammad Kazem (2012), "Developments in the Legal Basis of Media Freedom in the National, Regional and International Areas", Law Research Quarterly, No. 35, pp. 1-44 (In Persian).
    4. Rezaei, Mehdi & Babazadeh Moghaddam, Hamed (2014), "Principles of Law and Regulation for the Internet with Emphasis on UNESCO and Council of Europe Resolutions" Quarterly Journal of Public Law Research, Year 15, No. 42, pp. 43-83 (In Persian).
    5. Rezaeinejad, Iraj (2001), "Freedom of Expression in the International Human Rights System", Advocacy Monthly, Vol. 8 (In Persian).
    6. Soodmandi, Abdolmajid & Direct Qomi, Bahram (2011) "Defamation and its prohibition in the human rights system", Comparative Law Research, Vol.15, No. 1 (In Persian).
    7. Vijeh, Mohammad Reza & Taheri, Azadeh Sadat (2011), "An Analysis of the Law on Dissemination and Free Access to Information in the Light of General Principles Governing Access to Information" Journal of Public Law, No. 35 (In Persian).
    8. Yazdanofam, Mahmoud (2009), "Soft security and why it is important", Strategic Studies Quarterly, Vol. 45 (In Persian).
Public Law Studies Quarterly
Volume 52, Issue 3
Autumn 2022
Autumn 2022
Pages 1319-1340

  • Receive Date 06 March 2020
  • Revise Date 03 February 2021
  • Accept Date 01 March 2021

Home

Journal Process Ethics

Peer Review Process

Submission

Indexing and Abstracting

Contact Us