ξ

Today’s society is obsessed with reality. More specifically, we are obsessed with knowing each and every detail of people’s lives. With access to social media and television, we have unlimited information available to us. It is the press that provides us with this information; however, the press is frequently targeted for simply exercising its First Amendment rights.

As a result, too many journalists are unfairly incarcerated for publishing information that may be deemed harmful. If our country is truly a democracy, everyone is entitled to freedom of speech; more specifically, the rights of the press should be better protected under the law.

With today’s society being obsessed with reality and knowing every single detail of everyone’s life, it is nearly impossible for prominent individuals to keep any aspects of their lives private. There are currently no laws in place that prevent the press from having unlimited disclosure of information through the media; as a result, the press is frequently targeted for publishing information that may be harmful to individuals.

While I maintain that the press has the right to disclose any information to the public within reason, our government must update privacy laws in order to protect people from having their lives exposed and ruined by the media.

The rights of the press have been debated for quite a long time. More recently, a case featuring a blogger, Roger Shuler, presented a court decision that was unconstitutional because it violated Shuler’s First Amendment rights. According to The New York Times, Shuler was being sued for libel; however, libel was not proved in court.

Despite the lack of evidence, Shuler was still incarcerated. We need to have laws in place that prevent the judicial system from unfairly sentencing journalists.

Furthermore, if our judicial system chooses to prosecute journalists for merely practicing their rights, it must be done within reason. It was evident that in the 1971 Supreme Court case of The New York Times vs. United States, the government was merely trying to protect the safety of the American people. In this case, The New York Times was targeted for publishing “The Pentagon Papers,” which revealed the government’s plans for the war in Vietnam. However, the government failed to prove that The Times’ publication presented a clear and present danger to the public; therefore, the attempt to suppress free speech was entirely unjustified.

The press also had certain confidentiality privileges, secured by the First Amendment. Sources are frequently targeted in libel suits because, according to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, “falsity is a key element of a defamation cause of action.” According to The New York Times, Attorney General Eric Holder recently put new guidelines in place that will “protect reporters from overly zealous prosecutors,” so it appears that progress is being made on that front.

Despite this, Holder has recently been demanding a source from James Risen, a writer for The New York Times. Risen wrote a book in 2006 for the C.I.A., and refuses to disclose the identities of these sources.

Journalists everywhere have been targeted for withholding sources, even though they are entitled to do so under the First Amendment. Because of this, it is essential that the Supreme Court adhere to the Constitution and the privileges promised under the First Amendment.

With the issues currently facing the press with privacy, confidentiality and unjustified incarceration, it is evident that our laws need to be revised to meet the demands of today’s ever-changing world of media. It is entirely unacceptable for journalists to be unfairly incarcerated for merely practicing their First Amendment rights; therefore, it is the responsibility of our government to not only create laws that protect the rights of everyone, but also to adhere to those laws.