Argument for Paparazzi

In some simplistic sense everybody in America believes in freedom of speech, and certainly it is not to say that everybody in America believes that freedom of speech means the same thing. But it is to say that in a deep sense, "freedom of speech" is a value that has become powerfully internalized by the American people. Freedom of speech is a core American belief, an article of constitutional faith.

How do we account for the modern American reverence for freedom of speech? Why is this value so solidly entrenched in our constitutional law, and why is it so widely embraced by the general public? Over the years many philosophers, historians, legal scholars and judges have offered theoretical justifications for strong protection of freedom of speech, and in these justifications we may also find explanatory clues.

An obvious starting point is the direct link between freedom of speech and vibrant democracy. Free speech is an indispensable tool of self-governance in a democratic society.  Justice Louis Brandeis wrote in accord with this statement that "freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth," in Whitney vs. United States (1927).  [3] Whitney vs. United States was  a case about a distinguished citizen of California, Anita Whitney.  Whitney was accused of aiding the establishment of the Communist Labor Party, which encouraged violent uprising toward the government.  This case is most remembered for the agreement of Justice Holmes and Justice Brandeis as one of the most influential opinions regarding the defense of freedom of speech.  [4]

Freedom of speech is also an essential contributor to the American belief in government confined by a system of checks and balances. For much of the world’s history governments have taken it upon themselves to play the role of a firm censor, on the theory that the wise governance of men proceeds from the wise governance of their opinions. But the United States was founded on the more revolutionary principles of John Locke, who taught that under the social comtract, sovereignty always rests with the people, who never surrender their natural right to protest, or even revolt, when the state exceeds the limits of legitimate authority.  [5] Speech is a means of "people-power," through which the people may search out corruption and discourage overreaching governments.

Yet while the country continues to struggle to define the limits and continues to debate the details, there is surprisingly little struggle and debate over the core meaning. Americans truly do embrace the central belief that freedom of thought, conscience and expression are essential values, connected to our defining characteristics as human beings. While limits must exist, American culture and law approach such limits with continuing caution and skepticism, embracing freedom of speech as a value of great constitutional importance.

The recent proposal of a very controversial legislation, called the Patriot Act, has caused concern for all people who uphold the values of the First Amendment and defend the right of freedom of speech.  The basic tenants of the Patriot Act call for U.S. government sponsored censorship on acts such as internet access, library records, and telephone tapping.  Supporters of the Act say that these are necessary actions to ensure the safety of America against terrorists.  But, opponents to the Act counter that this is just another way the government is trying to take away more our civil liberties, one by one.  [6]

In the United States, the government may not prevent the publication of a newspaper, even when there is reason to believe that it is about to reveal information that will endanger our national security. By the same token, the government cannot:

• Pass a law that requires newspapers to publish information against their will.
• Impose criminal penalties, or civil damages, on the publication of truthful information about a matter of public concern or even on the dissemination of false and damaging information about a public person except in rare instances.
• Impose taxes on the press that it does not levy on other businesses.
• Compel journalists to reveal, in most circumstances, the identities of their sources.
• Prohibit the press from attending judicial proceedings and thereafter informing the public about them.  [7]

The First Amendment rights of free speech and free press often clash with the interests served by defamation law.  The press exists in large part to report on issues of public concern. However, individuals possess a right not to be subjected to falsehoods that impugn their character. The clash between the two rights can lead to expensive litigation, million-dollar jury verdicts and negative public views of the press.  

The threat of libel suits can cause individuals to keep quiet about issues of public concern. Very few people have the economic resources to defend themselves after being hauled into court for defamation. But the First Amendment protects everyone, and it is important to maintain a proper balance between libel law and the First Amendment.