Freedom of the Press: Crash Course Government and Politics #26

Summary

In this Crash Course Government and Politics episode, Craig discusses the First Amendment's protection of press freedom, highlighting its importance for a functioning democracy. He explains the concept of 'prior restraint' and how it's prohibited, using the Near v. Minnesota case as an example. Craig also covers libel laws, the 'chilling effect,' and the landmark New York Times v. Sullivan case, which established 'actual malice' as the standard for public figure libel. The video touches on exceptions like national security, using the Pentagon Papers case to illustrate the courts' stance on press censorship.

Takeaways

• 📜 The First Amendment protects the freedom of the press by preventing the government from censoring it.
• 🚫 Prior restraint, or censorship before publication, is not allowed as per the Supreme Court case Near v. Minnesota.
• 🗞️ A free press is essential for a functioning political system and for citizens to criticize the government and expose wrongdoings.
• 📚 The Supreme Court's decision in Near v. Minnesota was based on historical precedents, including Blackstone and James Madison's views on press freedom.
• 🤑 If a publication contains false information about a public figure, they can be sued for libel, which acts as a deterrent for false reporting.
• 🥶 The 'chilling effect' refers to the self-censorship by the press due to fear of libel suits or other punishments.
• 📰 In New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court established that proving 'actual malice' is required to win a libel case against a public figure.
• 🕵️‍♂️ The press plays a critical role in American democracy by providing information to citizens, which is necessary for making informed decisions and holding officials accountable.
• 🚨 There are exceptions to press freedom, particularly when it comes to national security, where the government can censor information that could aid enemies.
• 📖 The Pentagon Papers case (New York Times v. US) further strengthened the First Amendment protection of the press against prior restraint, even when it involves classified information.
• 🤔 The script encourages viewers to consider the implications of press freedom when discussing controversial figures like Edward Snowden and Julian Assange.

Q & A

What does the First Amendment protect regarding the press?

The First Amendment protects the freedom of the press by preventing the government from censoring the press, which includes preventing the press from publishing information in the first place and punishing news agencies after they have published something.

What is prior restraint and why is it not allowed?

Prior restraint is the censorship of the press before a story is published or broadcasted. It is not allowed because the Supreme Court ruled in Near v. Minnesota that no government is allowed to censor the press as a free press is essential for the political system to work.

What historical authorities did the Supreme Court rely on to support its decision in Near v. Minnesota?

The Supreme Court relied on the British legal authority William Blackstone and the American authority James Madison, who was one of the Founding Fathers and the author of the Constitution, to support their decision.

How does the concept of libel relate to the freedom of the press?

Libel is a remedy for when a newspaper prints something untrue about a government official or public figure. The person affected can sue the publisher for libel and potentially receive monetary damages. However, the fear of libel suits can lead to self-censorship, which is a form of after-the-fact censorship.

What was the outcome of the New York Times v. Sullivan case?

In the New York Times v. Sullivan case, the Supreme Court ruled that the standard for libel of a public figure is 'actual malice', meaning the publisher must have known the statement was false and acted with reckless disregard for the truth. This ruling made it difficult to win libel cases against the press.

What is the 'chilling effect' mentioned in the script?

The 'chilling effect' refers to the suppression of speech or publication due to fear of legal repercussions or punishment. It can apply to individuals who are afraid to speak out and to news organizations that refrain from publishing stories for fear of potential punishment.

Are there any exceptions to the First Amendment protection of the press?

Yes, there are exceptions, such as when national security is at stake. The government can censor the press before they print stories about certain security issues that could aid enemies and risk soldiers' lives.

What was the issue in the New York Times v. US case?

The issue in New York Times v. US was whether the Times could publish the Pentagon Papers, which were secret documents revealing questionable government reasoning behind the Vietnam War. The government tried to prevent publication, but the Supreme Court ruled against prior restraint, strengthening the First Amendment protection of the free press.

Why is a free press considered essential for American democracy?

A free press is essential for American democracy because it allows citizens to have enough information to make informed decisions and hold elected officials accountable. It serves as a check on government power and prevents tyranny by ensuring that citizens are aware of the government's actions.

What is the significance of the First Amendment in discussions about Edward Snowden and Julian Assange?

The First Amendment's protection of free speech and press is significant in discussions about Edward Snowden and Julian Assange because it highlights the balance between the public's right to know and the government's need to protect sensitive information. Their actions raise questions about whistleblowing, transparency, and the role of the press in a democratic society.

Outlines

00:00

📰 Freedom of the Press and Prior Restraint

This paragraph discusses the First Amendment's protection of the press against government censorship. It explains that the press has the freedom to publish information without prior restraint, as established in the Near v. Minnesota case. The Supreme Court ruled that press censorship is not allowed because a free press is essential for the political system. The paragraph also touches on the concept of 'prior restraint' and the historical context provided by Blackstone and James Madison. It further discusses the remedy of libel suits for false publications and the 'chilling effect' that fear of such suits can have on press freedom.

05:02

🛡️ National Security and Press Freedom

The second paragraph delves into the exceptions to press freedom, particularly in matters of national security. It references the New York Times v. US case, which centered on the publication of the Pentagon Papers. These were secret documents that revealed questionable government reasoning behind the Vietnam War. The government attempted to prevent their publication to avoid public opinion turning against the war. The Supreme Court ruled against this prior restraint, reinforcing the First Amendment's protection of a free press. The paragraph also discusses the balance between the need for information and the potential harm to national security, as well as the broader implications for American democracy and the public's right to know what their government is doing.

Keywords

💡First Amendment

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly, and petition. In the video, it is central to the discussion as it guarantees press freedom, a key theme. The First Amendment prevents the government from censoring the press and enables a free exchange of information essential for a functioning democracy.

💡Freedom of the Press

This concept refers to the protection of journalists and news organizations from government censorship or interference. The video explains that the government cannot prevent the press from publishing information, which is crucial for ensuring transparency and holding the government accountable. The case of Near v. Minnesota is used to illustrate how this freedom was upheld.

💡Prior Restraint

Prior restraint is government action that prohibits speech or other expressions before they can take place. In the video, this concept is discussed in relation to press freedom, specifically how the Supreme Court ruled in Near v. Minnesota that prior restraint is unconstitutional, thereby protecting the press from censorship before publication.

💡Libel

Libel is a legal term for a false statement that is damaging to a person’s reputation. The video highlights how public figures, like government officials, can sue for libel if false information is published. However, it also explains the difficulty of winning such cases due to the 'actual malice' standard established in New York Times v. Sullivan.

💡Chilling Effect

A chilling effect occurs when individuals or entities refrain from exercising their legal rights (like free speech) due to fear of legal repercussions. In the video, this is discussed in the context of self-censorship by newspapers that may avoid publishing stories to prevent libel lawsuits, which could undermine press freedom.

💡Actual Malice

Actual malice is a legal standard that must be proven in libel cases involving public figures. It means that the publisher knew the information was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. The video references this standard, introduced in New York Times v. Sullivan, which makes it difficult for public figures to win libel cases.

💡National Security

National security refers to the protection of a nation’s secrets and interests, particularly in times of war or threats. The video discusses how press freedom can be limited in cases of national security, such as preventing the publication of troop movements or classified information, as seen in the case of the Pentagon Papers.

💡Pentagon Papers

The Pentagon Papers were classified government documents that revealed misleading information about U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. In the video, the New York Times v. US case is discussed, where the Supreme Court ruled that the government could not stop the publication of these papers, emphasizing the strength of press freedom even in matters of national security.

💡New York Times v. US

This Supreme Court case from 1971 addressed the government's attempt to prevent the New York Times from publishing the Pentagon Papers. The video explains how the Court ruled against the government's use of prior restraint, thus reinforcing the protection of press freedom even when national security concerns were raised.

💡James Madison

James Madison, one of the Founding Fathers and the principal author of the U.S. Constitution, is referenced in the video for his views on the necessity of a free press. Madison argued that the press should be free from both executive and legislative restraint, emphasizing its role in safeguarding democracy by exposing government wrongdoing.

Highlights

The First Amendment protects the freedom of the press from government censorship.

Prior restraint, or censorship before publication, is not allowed as per the Supreme Court case Near v. Minnesota.

The press must be free to criticize the government and expose wrongdoings.

James Madison emphasized the press should be exempt from both executive and legislative restraint.

Libel suits can act as a form of after-the-fact censorship if newspapers self-censor to avoid them.

The landmark case New York Times v. Sullivan established the 'actual malice' standard for libel involving public figures.

To win a libel case, one must prove the publisher knew the statement was false and acted with reckless disregard for the truth.

Unflattering publicity for celebrities might be seen as the price of fame.

There are exceptions to press freedom, such as when national security is at stake.

The government can prevent the press from printing information that could aid enemies during war.

The Supreme Court case New York Times v. US allowed the publication of the Pentagon Papers, reinforcing press freedom.

The First Amendment is crucial for citizens to make informed decisions and hold elected officials accountable.

Press freedom is essential to prevent government tyranny and ensure democratic processes.

The debate over figures like Edward Snowden and Julian Assange relates to the balance between press freedom and national security.

Crash Course Government and Politics is produced in association with PBS Digital Studios, with support from Voqal.

Transcripts

Hi, I'm Craig and this is Crash Course Government and Politics, and today we're gonna finish

up our discussion of the First Amendment, finally, by talking about everybody's favorite: the press.

The First Amendment is pretty clear that Congress can't make any laws abridging the freedom

of the press, and since you understand the basics of free speech because you were paying

attention, the reasons for this should make a lot of sense. But as with any discussion

of the First Amendment, things aren't as straight forward as we might think, and the freedom

of the press, just like the freedom of speech, is not absolute.

[Theme Music]

The main thing to know about the First Amendment and the press is that it prevents the government

from censoring the press. For the most part, this means preventing the press from publishing

some information in the first place, although it can also mean punishing a news agency after

they published something. Let's deal with pre-publication freedom of the press first.

Let's go to the Thought Bubble.

Censorship of the press before a story is published in print, broadcast on television,

radio or the internet, is called prior restraint, and the supreme court ruled that it was not

allowed in a case called Near v. Minnesota. In that case, a newspaper called The Saturday

Press was gonna publish a story that the city of Minneapolis was under the secret control

of a cadre of Jewish gangsters, in particular the mayor and chief of police. City officials

obtained an injunction to stop the publication of this story, and they gave The Saturday

Press editors the opportunity to go before a judge to prove that the story was true.

I'll get to this question of truth in a minute.

The judge ordered the injunction and said that if the newspaper violated it, they would

be punished for contempt of court. Instead, the newspaper counter-sued, claiming that

Minneapolis and Minnesota were violating their freedom of the press. The supreme court agreed

that no government was allowed to censor the press because a free press is essential for

the political system to work. They based their decision on a lot of history, including Blackstone

- the British legal authority which explained "The liberty of the press is indeed essential

to the nature of a free state; but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publications

and not in freedom from censure from criminal matter when published."

And they also relied on an important American authority on the constitution: James Madison

- heard of him? - who derived a lot of his constitutional expertise from the fact that

he wrote the thing. He said, "This security of the freedom of the press requires that

it should be exempt not only from previous restraint by the executive as in Great Britain,

but from legislative restraint also."

Citizens need a free press to be able to criticize the government and to expose government wrongdoing

because otherwise the government can get away with all sorts of things that we don't want

it to, like say spying on us, and reading our email, and reading our spy's email! Of

course, even with a free press, the government can do this, and what constitutes a press

in the age of the internet is a debatable question. WikiLeaks, anyone? But the basic

proposition that the press must be able to protect us against an over-reaching government

still stands. Thanks Thought Bubble.

There's another reason why the Court put the kibosh on prior restraint, and that's because

if a newspaper prints something that is untrue about the government, or more practically,

about a government official, there's a remedy for this. The person or agency about whom

the untrue thing was said or written and published can sue the publisher for libel, and if he

proves his case, can get monetary damages. This is supposed to prevent newspapers from

flat out lying about public officials, but libel suits can cause another problem, in

that they can basically end up being after the fact censorship. If a newspaper is so

afraid of a libel suit that it decides not to publish a story, then it effectively censors itself.

Sometimes courts call this a "chilling effect" and it applies to speech that people are afraid

to make because of potential lawsuit or other punishment, as well as articles and news stories

that go unpublished out of fear of potential punishment. Tell you what, I ain't afraid

of punishment for that. I can do what I want! Freedom of speech!

Luckily for us, the Court dealt with the libel issue in another landmark case, New York Times

v. Sullivan from 1964. This case involved an advertisement in the Times that included

some inaccurate statements about the way Alabama law enforcement was treating Civil Rights

protesters including Martin Luther King Jr. The Montgomery Public Safety Commissioner,

L.B. Sullivan thought these mis-statements amounted to libel and sued the Times. He lost

at the Supreme Court, and they ruled that the standard for libel of a public figure

was actual malice, which was my nickname in high school.

This means that in order to win a libel case, you must prove that the publisher of the libelous

statement knew that the statement was false and acted with reckless disregard, my friend's

nickname in high school, for the truth. This is an almost impossible standard to prove,

and what it means is that public figures almost never win libel cases. This goes a long way

toward explaining some of outlandish things you read about politicians and celebrities

in print, and I'm not even gonna begin to talk about some of what you can find on the

Internet, like a bearded dude talking about government and punching eagles.

Some argue that we shouldn't feel too bad about celebrities, and we should remember

that they are celebrities and are usually doing alright for themselves. Unflattering

publicity might simply be considered the price of fame. I'd point out that celebrities are

human, too, except for Lil Bub, the only non-human celebrity, and probably don't like being libeled.

I guess Jar-Jar Binks is another non-human celebrity, and he gets a lot of bad press,

but he truly is terrible, so it's not libel.

So it sounds like the First Amendment protection of a free press is pretty much absolute, but

there are always exceptions that make things complicated. One of these exceptions is the

question of national security. There are some security issues that are so important that

the government is allowed to censor the press before they can print stories about them.

The best example of this is that the government can prevent the press from printing detailed

descriptions of troop movements during a war, because this would help the enemy and put

soldiers' lives at risk. It's kinda like in the spy movies when the bad guys learn all

the names and aliases of the secret agents, except it's real. Knowing this, most newspapers

wouldn't print this sort of thing, at least while it's happening.

But what about after the fact? Well, it gets complicated, but another Supreme Court case

gives us some guidance about what to expect. In New York Times v. US -- why is it always

the New York Times? -- the issue was whether or not the Times could publish the Pentagon

Papers. These were secret documents, stolen from the government by Daniel Ellsberg, who

had worked at the Defense Department. They showed that much of the government's reasoning

behind the Vietnam War was untrue or at least highly questionable, hmm, I'm gonna go with

untrue. The government tried to stop the Times and the Washington Post, too, from publishing

these papers, because it would make the government look bad and perhaps turn public opinion against

the war. Now, this was 1971, and a good deal of public opinion was kind of already against

the war, so much so that Lyndon Johnson had decided not to run for re-election just a

few years before in 1968. But the government said that publication of this classified report

would cause irreparable harm to America's ability to defend itself, and they tried to

stop the publication. The Court ruled against this prior restraint, further strengthening

the First Amendment protection of the free press. It also slapped down the executive

branch, which was trying to claim its privilege to keep state secrets. But we already mentioned

this when talking about Nixon and his attempts to hold on to the Watergate tapes.

Anyway, as you can see, the First Amendment offers a lot of protections to citizens in

the press, especially when they're criticizing the government or its policies, or even when

they're making fun of celebrities. This is really, really important, because American

democracy relies on its citizens having enough information to make good decisions and hold

elected officials accountable. We rely on the press to tell us what the government is

doing so that we can decide whether or not we want to let them keep doing it. If the

government can keep us from getting important or even not so important information by censoring

the press or by preventing us from speaking out against what we see as wrong, it will

be able to keep doing this that might be bad, and this is the kind of tyranny that the Framers

of the Bill of Rights were most worried about. So the more you're concerned about tyranny,

the freer you want speech and the press to be. This is something to think about when

you engage in arguments about Edward Snowden and his NSA disclosures, or Julian Assange and WikiLeaks.

Thanks for watching. I'll see you next time. Crash Course Government and Politics is produced

in association with PBS Digital Studios. Support for Crash Course US Government comes from

Voqal. Voqal supports non-profits that use technology and media to advance social equity.

Learn more about their mission and initiatives at Voqal.org. Crash Course is made with the

help of all of these free speakers. Thanks for watching. That guy speaks a little too freely, if you ask me.