|An inquiry into the question that, given the conflicting interests of the people, business interests, politicians, government agencies and the courts, is it possible to strike a socially acceptable balance and still have a fair and vigorous free press whose right to function is fully protected by the First Amendment?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peacefully to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
For a free, open, and democratic society to not only exist but to thrive ultimately depends on the existence of a free press whose right to publish without fear or favor is guaranteed by the highest law of the land, respected by all levels of government, and protected by the courts.
Everyone in a free society benefits from open government, freedom of information, and a vigorous and ethical free press.
Concurrently, the precious heritage of the right to personal privacy1 needs constant protection, especially in an era of explosive growth in technological innovations that provide almost effortless acquisition of personal information, both data and images, that can be stored in binary form for continuing compilation, comparison, and dissemination by all manner of entities: government agencies, business interests, the traditional press, and instant 'wannabe' publishers with a modem, an ISP account, and entry-level html skills.2
The people feel increasingly threatened by the diminution of privacy as more and more personal information - medical, financial, family, employment, is compiled into accessible databases. The press is viewed by many as a monolithic trash monger, and the Net as place of pornography, perversion, perfidy, and a danger to all youth.
The government, no longer faced with an easily identifiable enemy -e.g., Monolithic Communism bent on World Domination - now perceives equally malevolent threats in domestic and international terrorism and drug importation and use. To combat these evils, all weapons - legislation, litigation, the latest in technology - must be acquired and used, preferably as free from public scrutiny as possible.
The business of Business is the pursuit, acquisition, and retention of money which is, from the viewpoint of business, best conducted as free as possible from government regulation.3 And, of course, also concealed as far as possible from the gaze of press and public.
The press, in its twin roles as society's watchdog and the people's surrogate must have free and easy access to information and the protected right to publish it. Hand in hand with these rights are the moral obligations of ethical practice, accuracy, fairness, and the elusive goal of professional objectivity. Far from being altruists, those who own and control newspapers, radio stations, television networks, and web sites keep a watchful eye on the bottom line.
Although the press' First Amendment rights are under constant attack from various societal forces - the courts, the police, the military, various agencies of all levels of government, politicians, self-appointed Net Nannies - and there is and has been erosion, the majority of Americans believe in and support the general thrust of Article I of the Bill of Rights.4
Building on this foundation of basic support, I believe it is possible to maintain a free and open press in the United States as long as there is continuing fair play coupled with continuing vigilance.
PRIVACY AND THE INDIVIDUAL
The late-20th century pressures of living both on a treadmill and within a fishbowl will continue to increase as Y2K turns into the new millennium. Fear - widespread fear - is the operative word.
Fear for personal economic futures. Fear of rising health-care costs and diminished capacity of the delivery system to perform when needed. Fear of loss of control of personal information.
Everyone - the government, the post office, the health-care system, commercial interests - is mining our valuable personal data and exploiting it. And, to a great extent, without our permission or even our knowledge. Widespread use of sophisticated technologies is increasingly depriving individuals of the power to control their information. Not only is it easier to compile personal data but the data can be shared by many other parties - without either knowledge or consent of those to whom the information pertains.5
The late U. S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, long a supporter of the rights of the individual, had it right, in principle, when he talked of "the right to let alone." However, that is not the way things are, nor will they ever be again.
[Brandeis, before he was named to Supreme Court, along with Boston attorney Samuel Warren, wrote in 1890 an influential law review article that was instrumental in creating the invasion-of-privacy theory. Attorney Douglas Lee, a correspondent for the Freedom Forum's First Amendment Center, has written that "Warren and Brandeis argued that truthful reporting about private affairs was causing 'a lowering of social standards and morality' and that the press had overstepped 'in every direction the obvious bounds of propriety and decency." Warren, Lee noted, had a personal axe to grind: "...the press had covered some of his family's social gatherings in intimate and embarrassing detail. A legal theory that would allow recovery of damages for this type of reporting, they claimed, would chill this 'unseemly gossip.'" Surely, Matt Drudge must have them both spinning in their graves.]6
The widespread adoption of the computer by government agencies, educational institutions, NGOs, business interests, and the press, and the explosion of databases insures that scenario.
Even more threatening is the practice of linking databases for almost instantaneous comparison/matching of data. It's all in there: Social Security information, medical histories, credit ratings, job performance, insurance claims, financial transactions, criminal records. Life recorded as 1s and 0s, bits and bytes, and very accessible to the determined.
The FBI has established, at a highly secure location, a DNA database of sexual offenders. The realistic question is not will all accused felons eventually be included in the database, but how soon will it happen? Ditto information gleaned from their new "rolling wire tap" powers.4
The Department of Transportation wants all states to have identical forms for driver's licenses - a back-door approach to instituting a National Identity Card.5 The Clinton Administration supports imposition of a national medical identifier number.6 Recently, a panel of medical experts called for HIV testing of all pregnant women.7 Will this information be keyboarded into databases? Most certainly. Will the database information ever be used for purposes other than which it was acquired, such as law enforcement fishing expeditions? It would be na´ve to say no.
Realistically, we should not expect any real privacy on-line. Sysops can legally 'review' non-voice messages stored on line, even those 'in transit.' It is relatively easy for law enforcement agencies to get access to stored messages over six months old through administrative action as opposed to stricter standards to obtain a magistrate's warrant.
The reality is that as technology continues to improve, we edge closer to becoming a techno-surveillance state. Writer George Orwell had the concept right in "1984," he just had the technology wrong.
There have been attempts at protecting privacy. This October the European Union instituted strict data protection measures that must be adopted by all the member states. And personal data will not be allowed to be shared by non-member states - including the United States, whose privacy protection laws do not conform to the Euro-Union's Directive.11
And in the aftermath of the auto-accident death of Princess Diana and her lover, California took steps to limit the access of so-called "paparazzi," a move urged and applauded by various high-profile celebrities anxious for public exposure but equally anxious about controlling just what information is made public and how it is presented, and by whom.
As of January 1, 1999, anyone in California (apparently including journalists) can be charged with invasion of privacy if caught "trespassing with the intent to capture audio or video images of a celebrity or crime victim engaging in a personal or family activity in circumstances where they had a reasonable expectation of privacy."12
The danger here, of course, is denial of information to the press, and thus the public, both in Europe and in the United States.
The Euro Directive allows member governments to grant exceptions to the press, but who determines who is a member of the press?
And why should any government be allowed to define who is, or who isn't, a journalist?13
Using the California image/sound law for example, once the principle of limiting access to information is established and precedent set, interested parties (e.g., law enforcement, government agencies, lawyers) push hard to expand the coverage.
An even more frightening proposal is under consideration in Utah. There, the Information Technology Commission has recommended that existing state law be broadened to "impose criminal liability on anyone who reports, among other things, an individual's name, address, age, race, criminal history, educational or employment background, or personal views unless the individual unambiguously consents in writing."15
Not to be outdone, Michigan has passed a law aimed directly at photojournalists that prohibits "photographing corpses in open graves or locations from which recovering a body would be difficult, such as mine shafts and underwater shipwrecks."16
The press needs to not only fight for continued open access to public information and the right to fair use, but at the same time recognize its responsibilities to fair play in newsgathering and publishing.
If Joe Sixpack is involved in an automobile accident or in a public event, use of his photograph in that specific context is fair use and fair game, whether in the local weekly or an on-line news journal.
But if actor Mel Gibson or Mayor Harvey Lothrop of East Bumstead, Vermont, are skinny-dipping in their backyards and you happen to be on the sidewalk and can capture the moment with a telephoto lens, that's neither fair use nor fair play - that's invasion of privacy and seemingly actionable.
[Invasion of Privacy includes four separate types of lawsuits: intrusion, disclosure of private facts, false light, and misappropriation.]15
IN THE INTEREST OF BUSINESS
While there is basic individual support for First Amendment guarantees for a free press, there is a definite chill in the air when the focus is turned to big business and the courts.
Juries are increasing the size of libel awards.17 In 1977 The Wall Street Journal and its parent company, Dow Jones & Co., were hit with a $222.7 million assessment by a federal jury for five statements published in 1993 that were found to be "false and defamatory." $200 million was in punitive damages; the remainder was for actual damages. This award was four times as large as the highest previous award in a libel suit (a Dallas, Texas, television station faced a $58 million award in 1991). On appeal, the $200 million was set aside, but the $22.7 million for actual damage was upheld.
According to the Liberal Defense Resource Center,18 the WSJ award is "part of a trend...punitive damages are playing a larger role in libel verdicts...awards against the press in 1996 averaged $2.8 million, a dramatic increase over the average of $1.6 million for the 1994-95 period..."
The Center reported that it also appears that "juries levied significantly higher damages against defendants in libel cases that they did against defendants in liability and medical malpractice suits." Secret settlements in civil suits are multiplying, as are gag orders and sealed files. The courts appear to be leaning over backwards in the interest of big business, which is learning to sidestep the press protections contained in the First Amendment with so-called "trash torts."19
The public has a definite interest in open access to court proceedings in civil matters, which is well established in common law if not an explicit constitutional right.20 Decisions arrived at in civil court often have far greater impact on the public than those in criminal proceedings. When civil settlements are reached behind closed doors - doors that are paid for with public funds -- and the records are sealed, the public is often the loser.21
Judicial threats against reporters of contempt charges, fines, and possible jail terms are very real. Federal Judge W. Earl Britt has ordered (on 10/20/98) that a North Carolina newspaperman reveal who told him the amount of settlement in a civil suit between Conoco Inc. and the residents of a mobile home park contaminated by chemical conglomerate. Judge Britt had sealed the terms of the settlement agreement, but someone talked to the reporter. Earlier this year the judge convicted the newspaper's bureau chief of contempt and levied a $500,000 fine against her and the newspaper. An appeal continues.21A
"Few people realize the incredible impact that secret settlements have on the public welfare," says Attorney Arthur Bryant, executive director of Trial Lawyers for Public Justice. Some cases in point:
Ford Motor Car Company was found to have been settling death claims in secret to hide the fact that the gasoline tanks in its Pinto car were dangerously defective. More than 500 people died when their Pintos caught fire because of the defective tanks.
General Motors used an arsenal of legal strategems, including sealed records, protective orders, and confidentiality agreements, to disguise settlements from damages caused by their unsafe fuel tanks.
How many women were actually damaged or died from side effects caused by silicone breast implants is still unknown. Concern about Dow Corning's devices came to the fore in 1983 yet the press could not report this until December, 1991, when the Federal Drug Administration began its investigation. The reason: the court had issued a protective order and the press was gagged.
People were injured by exploding Bic lighters, three children died in a fire blamed on a unsound Zenith television set (investigation discovered more than 100 prior secret settlements for damages caused by the sets).22
The Freedom Forum sums up the situation nicely: "Although there is ample evidence of the potential harm to the public caused by secret settlements, little is being done to correct this problem...the trend in many courts is to encourage secret negotiations and settlements in the interest of efficiency and privacy...however, doing so erects barriers to the press and thereby keeps the people in the dark about cases that could ultimately affect their health, their safety, and their lives."
When Food Lion Inc. went after ABC Television News in a high-profile civil suit for a 1992 investigative report that purported to uncover unsanitary conditions in the food chain's meat-handling practices, the corporation neatly did an end run around the First Amendment's truth-is-defense bulwark and sued the network for "trespass and fraud." They prudently stayed away from questioning the accuracy of the ABC report.
ABC newsmen allegedly falsified their work resumes to get inside the meat departments and did not tell their new employer they were undercover investigative reporters. The jury awarded Food Lion $5.5 million in punitive damages and $1,402 in compensatory damages, which was later reduced on appeal to $315,000. Chicago Tribune lawyer Dale Cohen has called this type of litigation "trash torts," which includes among other claims intrusion upon seclusion, infliction of emotional distress, and tortious interference.23
Not satisfied with the legal victory, Food Lion has gone on the attack. Assisted by a journalism professor hired for the project, the corporation has produced an "educational" package that is landing on the desk of j-school teachers across the land. The materials include a 15-minute video prepared by a public relations company, a corporate-produced report entitled "Fakes, Lies and Videotape," and "A Case Study in Journalism Ethics," written by Professor Jean Folkerts who was hired by Food Lion.
Ms. Folkerts, who is director of the George Washington University School of Media and Public Affairs, and who edits the journal Journalism & Mass Communications Quarterly, says she doesn't think that "just because somebody was paid to do something, it can't be valid." Ms. Folkerts adds that she is "disappointed" in the similarities between her study and Food Lion's report, but adds that "any intelligent educator can separate the two." For its part, ABC is ripped but says it will mount its own defense.24
OUR COURTS, OUR GOVERNMENT(S), OUR PRESS
Some believe that freedom of expression is so ingrained in the American psyche that it is unassailable, while others (the realists, in my view) argue that this basic right is always threatened.
The freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment have to be secured and secured again -- the fight is never over, the battle never won. The state is a constant menace to civil liberties; no one truly has freedom of speech unless everyone has it. Liberty is a process and the price is, indeed, eternal vigilance.24A
The battleground of this ongoing combat for freedom of expression is in the courtrooms of the nation. There are judges who continue to attempt to restrict press coverage - and thereby public knowledge - of courtroom issues and proceedings. Court-sanctioned assaults on the rights of student journalists continue. Given the First-Amendment history of the Unites States - from the Alien & Sedition Act to the "no-prior-restraint" decision in the Pentagon Papers case -- the picture is one of struggle but not entirely grim.25
"Direct judicial suppression of the press," reports the ACLU, "remains infrequent, because orders preventing the publication of court proceedings are usually found unconstitutional on appeal."26
Courts impose two kinds of gag orders: one curbs what the press can report, the other limits contact between participants in a trial and the media. There is a balance, delicate perhaps, that needs to be struck between the First (free press) and Sixth (fair trial) Amendments, but some judges have also tried to impose gag orders on participants after the trial ended.
One recent bright spot: A federal judge ruled in October, 1998, that Nevada's criminal libel law was unconstitutional, and infringed on the First Amendment. The law, enacted in 1911, held that the truth of an allegedly defamatory claim could be considered as a defense only if the statement was published "for good motive and for justifiable ends."27
The clear light of freedom, however, does not shine so brightly for student journalists. Since 1969, when the Supreme Court ruled that students have First Amendment rights,28 censorship by school authorities has increased.
In Hazlewood, the Supreme Court effectively cut student journalists off at the knees when it upheld the right of a high school principal in Missouri to delete what he felt were controversial articles (teenage divorce, pregnancy) from the school newspaper. Essentially, the court ruled that school censorship of all "school-sponsored non-forum student activity that involves student expression" was allowable if it serves educational objectives, and is done in a reasonable manner.29
Some 263 years ago Governor John Cosby had Publisher John Peter Zenger of the New York Weekly Journal hauled before the bar for "seditious libel" - that is, criticism.30 Truth, then, was no defense.
Free speech in America, and the free press, have a ragged history. Governments have used their power and enforcement agencies to curb the tongues and pens of anti-slavery forces, those who demanded the vote for women, organized labor, religious minorities, and pacifists who opposed organized violence and war. Anti-slavery opinions could land you behind bars for a year in pre-Civil War Virginia.
Feminist Margaret Sanger was busted in 1912 for lecturing on birth control. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes - strong First Amendment advocate that he was --had no problem with socialist Eugene V. Debs being jailed during WWI (under the Sedition Act of 1918) for daring to speak and write against the draft. Writer Upton Sinclair was arrested in 1923 during a union rally. His offense: reading aloud the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. 31
In 1919, all members of the Supreme Court voted in Schenck to uphold the conviction of an anti-war pamphleteer. The red-scare days of the 1950s saw the government running roughshod over constitutional rights. Since Brandenberg, in 1969, a new standard has prevailed: speech can only be suppressed if it is intended to, and likely to, cause "imminent lawless action."32
"The government," the ACLU points out, "has historically overused the concept of 'national security' to shield itself from criticism, and to discourage public discussion of controversial policies or decisions."33
In 1971, the federal government failed to block publication by the New York Times of the "Pentagon Papers" (documents related to the Vietnam war and official policy discussions) when the Supreme Court ruled against prior restraint. The government was unable to prove that publication would cause "direct, immediate, and irreparable harm."34
Since those Vietnam War days, when the press was free to report directly from the battlefield, the government - especially the military - has learned how to restrain the press and limit what information the public has access to, and when and how it gets it.
The press was effectively hamstrung by strict access regulations put into place by the military during the invasion of Grenada (1983), the anti-Noriega takeover of Panama (1989), and the Persian Gulf War (1990). War news was limited to controlled "official "news" (much of it slickly done, except for CNN reporting directly from the bowels of Baghdad), pool reports, and filings from accredited reporters accompanied by military "minders."
"The military," contends Jane Kirtley of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of Press, "has become inexorably committed to a censorship scheme."35
TODAY AND TOMORROW
Here's the challenge facing our free press in this time in which the media is viewed at best with mistrust and increasingly held in contempt for "trash reporting" - a commodity for which the information-consuming public seems to have an insatiable appetite:
How does the press, particularly the new on-line media with its pressure of "all-the-news-you-need-right-now," manage to be stimulating, daring, provocative, colorful, challenging, informative, and responsive while at the same time being accurate, responsible, and - above all - fair?
There are now more than 2000 North American newspapers on-line and the number grows by the day. Add to this the web portals and all the other information-oriented sites and the amount of "news" zipping around the Internet 24 hours a day is incomprehensible.
"One of the great ironies of our time," writes Jon Katz, First Amendment Scholar in the Freedom Forum, is that even though information is raining down on us from everywhere, far beyond our ability to grasp or control, the idea of censorship grows and evolves...Censorship doesn't ever quite seem to die - it just takes different and more ingenious forms."
J.M. Coetzee, a top-tier writer based in South Africa who knows first-hand the evils of apartheid and censorship puts it this way in his book, Giving Offense: Essays on Censorship (Chicago Press, $24.95): "State censorship presents itself as a bulwark between society and forces of subversion or moral corruption."
The protected right to freely publish exists in the United States (and Canada) today only because of continuing vigilance and struggle. With this great freedom, envied in most parts of the world, comes great responsibility.
There is no four-fold path to journalism salvation but Staci D. Kramer, chair of the Task Force on On-line Journalism cites these four ethical tenets as a good place to start:
Seek truth and report it
To these I would add:
Respect the legitimate privacy concerns of all citizens, public and private - the consensual vaginal insertion depth of a cigar really ought to be a private matter.
If this balance can be struck, then the initial question posed in this inquiry can be fairly answered affirmatively. If not, the press - and the country - will be in for some hard times in the days ahead.
1."Despite the absence of the term 'privacy' in the text of the Constitution itself, the Supreme Court has recognized at least some constitutional protection for a 'right to privacy.' This sometimes nebulous concept protects the right of people to make their own decisions about birth control, vocation, travel and other issues without government interference...However, the Constitution's prohibitions are directed at state action. Nowhere does it explicitly protect individuals from invasions of privacy committed by private actors, persons and organizations unsupported by the power of the state." The Privacy Paradox. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. http://www.rcfp.org/.
1a."The U.S. Constitution doesn't expressly grant a right to privacy, but the Supreme Court has interpreted several sections of the Constitution to protect different aspects of individual privacy. They include: The First Amendment's freedom of association and expression clause; the Fifth Amendment's privilege again self-incrimination; inferences from, or 'penumbras' of, the Bill of Rights and the Ninth Amendment; and the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of 'ordered liberty.'
The strongest protections arise from the Fourth Amendment, which safeguards American citizens, and their places, and effects, from unreasonable searches and seizures. Simply put, the Forth Amendment sets limits on government intrusion into people's private lives. But the Supreme Court interpretations of the Fourth Amendment have some weaknesses which are particularly troubling in the network environment." What Is Privacy And Why Should You Care? Center for Democracy & Technology. http://www.cdt.org.
2."Drudge, a slender man of 31 with receding black hair, is the most controversial reporter in America since Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein emerged from obscurity to expose the crimes of Richard Nixon a quarter-century ago. Working alone from his cluttered lair with a cheap computer and modem, Drudge 'broke' the story of President Clinton's alleged involvement with Kathleen Willey. He also 'broke' the story that would threaten the Clinton presidency, the Monica Lewinsky affair. 'Broke' is in quotation marks because Matt Drudge's journalism eludes conventional definition." Town Crier for the New Age (Matt Drudge). By David McClintick. Brill's Content magazine, Vol. 1, No. 4, 11/98.
3.A Framework for Global Electronic Commerce: Prepared by a U.S. Government Inter-agency working group.
4."The Freedom Forum poll finds that Americans express strong support for the freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment. While there are some areas of concern, on the whole the First Amendment is alive and well - at least from the perspective of the American public...Another healthy sign for the First Amendment is the strong support it would have if it were voted on by Americans today. Fully 93 percent of Americans say they would vote to ratify the First Amendment if they were voting on it now." Attitudes About First Amendment. By Ken Dautrich. Freedom Forum. http://www.freedomforum.org.
5."Technical Initiatives. What Is Privacy And Why Should You Care." Center For Democracy & Technology. http://www.cdt.org.
"Commentary: First Amendment Protection For Gossip." By Douglas Lee. First Amendment Center/The Freedom Forum. http://www.freedomforum.org.
7.The FBI's Wish List. By Niall McKay. Hot Wired, 10/1/98. http://www.hotwired.com/
8.Brief re: Docket No. NHTSA-98-3945. Electronic Privacy Information Center & Privacy International. 8/3/98. http://www.epic.org/.
9.Privacy and medical care. Editorial. Boston Globe.
10.Panel Recommends AIDS Test for all Pregnant Women. By Warren E. Leary. New York Times. 8/15/98. http://www.nytimes.com.
11.The Privacy Directive. By Jonathan Rosenoer. CyberLaw World Wide. http://www.portal.com/~cyberlaw/.
12."California passes law to rein in paparazzi; Opponents call law unconstitutionally broad." CNN. 10/01/98. http://www.cnn.com.
13."...the European Data Protection Directive does permit governments to prescribe information for those processing data for 'journalistic purposes.' But this presents two difficulties. The first involves allowing the government to define who is or is not a journalist - an undertaking that would seem proscribed by the First Amendment, and which would be a formidable task in view of the explosion of voices utilizing new media of communication such as the Internet. The second goes to the essential question of whether the government has any business regulating the exchange of truthful information in the first place. Certainly government entities may control their own collection and release of personal information within the bounds of constitutional principles of public oversight. But it could be argued that the First Amendment precludes government interference in the exchange of this information between private entities." The Privacy Paradox. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. http://www.rcfp.org/.
14.The Privacy Paradox. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. http://www.rcfp.org/.
15.The Privacy Paradox: Civil Suits. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. http://www.rcfp.org/.
16.The Privacy Paradox: Civil Suits. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. http://www.rcfp.org/.
17."Libel awards against the press." Freedom of the Press. Freedom Forum. http://www.freedomforum.org/.
18."Libel awards against the press." Freedom of the Press. Freedom Forum. http://www.freedomforum.org/.
19."The roar of Food Lion." Freedom of the Press. Freedom Forum. http://www.freedomforum.org/.
20."Civil proceedings and documents." The Privacy Paradox. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. http://www.rcfp.org/.
21."Out-of-court settlements often inaccessible." Freedom of the Press. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. http://www.rcfp.org/.
21A."Federal judge tells N.C. reporter to reveal sources." The Associated Press/Freedom Forum. 10/20/98. http://www.freedomforum.org.
22."Out-of-court settlements often inaccessible." Freedom of the Press. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. http://www.rcfp.org/.
23."The roar of Food Lion." Freedom of the Press. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. http://www.rcfp.org/.
24."Food Lion vs. ABC: Taking the Fight to the Classroom." By Jacqueline Sharked. American Journalism Review. 10/98.
24A."First Amendment Needs Daily Defense." Freedom Forum in American Journalism Review. 3/98. http://www.ajr.org.
25."Number 10: Freedom of Expression." American Civil Liberties Union. http://www.aclu.org.
26."Freedom of the Press." Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. http://www.rcfp.org/.
27."Federal Judge Strikes Down Nevada's Criminal Libel Law." By David Hudson. Freedom Forum. 10/2/98. http://www.freedomforum.org.
28."Student Journalism: Freedom of the Press." Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. http://www.rcfp.org/.
29."Student Journalism: Freedom of the Press." Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. http://www.rcfp.org/.
30."Freedom of the Press." Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. http://www.rcfp.org/.
31."The First Amendment Ignored." Freedom of Expression. American Civil Liberties Union. http://www.aclu.org.
32."The Supreme Court and the First Amendment." Freedom of Expression. American Civil Liberties Union. http://www.aclu.org.
33.Speech & National Security." Freedom of Expression. American Civil Liberties Union. http://www.aclu.org.
34.Speech & National Security." Freedom of Expression. American Civil Liberties Union. http://www.aclu.org.
35."Military Press Pools." Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. http://www.rcfp.org/.
36."The new censors: on-line, off-line, in your face." Jon Katz, First Amendment Center scholar. Freedom Forum. 10/29/98. http://www.freedomforum.org.
Home | Stories | Opinions