Other Added - Does the First Amendment Always Protect US Media

By the early years of the republic when the U.S. system of checks and balances was devised, a daring journalistic community had already become established. A bold and scrappy press was an influential force in denouncing the rule of an English King and leading Colonial America into its revolution against the British Empire. With journalistic freedom protected in the 1791 Bill of Rights, the press became an assertive force during the first decades of nationhood. The U.S. media today is frequently known as the Fourth Estate, an appellation that suggests the press shares equal stature with the three branches of government created by the Constitution. But although the press was not established as an institution by the U.S. constitution, today many citizens believe that it constitutes a branch of U.S. government. Numerous debates still rise regarding press's freedom to act as a watchdog of the American government. Is it protected by law?

Several critical court cases have been landmarks in establishing the rights of the press to pursue information and to publish government documents or derogatory information about public figures. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the media should have some First Amendment protection from the laws of libel for fear that lawsuits and possible monetary damages might disincline media owners from fully reporting on public matters. In order for a public figure to win a defamation case against a media defendant, the plaintiff must show "actual malice," which the courts have defined as knowledge that the published statement was false or as "reckless disregard of whether it was false or not".<

Several critical court cases have been landmarks in establishing the rights of the press to pursue information and to publish government documents or derogatory information about public figures. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the media should have some First Amendment protection from the laws of libel for fear that lawsuits and possible monetary damages might disincline media owners from fully reporting on public matters. In order for a public figure to win a defamation case against a media defendant, the plaintiff must show "actual malice," which the courts have defined as knowledge that the published statement was false or as "reckless disregard of whether it was false or not".<

Several critical court cases have been landmarks in establishing the rights of the press to pursue information and to publish government documents or derogatory information about public figures. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the media should have some First Amendment protection from the laws of libel for fear that lawsuits and possible monetary damages might disincline media owners from fully reporting on public matters. In order for a public figure to win a defamation case against a media defendant, the plaintiff must show "actual malice," which the courts have defined as knowledge that the published statement was false or as "reckless disregard of whether it was false or not".<

In our time, American free speech law has become an issue of international appeal since the Internet rose as another main medium of communication. Probably, this is because many banned groups can take advantage of Internet service providers based in the United States to send their messages around the world, even where such speech is banned. U.S. courts will not enforce foreign judgments contrary to domestic public policy, including the liberal U.S. policy on free speech. As for the U.S. perspective, many Americans dislike attempts by common law jurisdictions to extend their personal jurisdiction to American defendants whose alleged defamatory speech acts occurred over the Internet and were not targeted towards those jurisdictions. If the First Amendment cannot protect them, what else can? Is diplomacy a solution? The fact remains that political and social scientists seem to have set off in unknown waters.

HTTP = HTML link (for blogs, profiles,phorums):
<a href="http://www.otheradded.com/article/127870/otheradded-Does-the-First-Amendment-Always-Protect-US-Media.html">Does the First Amendment Always Protect US Media</a>

BB link (for phorums):
[url=http://www.otheradded.com/article/127870/otheradded-Does-the-First-Amendment-Always-Protect-US-Media.html]Does the First Amendment Always Protect US Media[/url]

Related Articles:

Dazzle Interviewers With Your Achievements

Attention Job Seekers: Tasks and Responsibilities are Boooring Ho hum. The interviewer sits there drumming her fingers on the desk trying to look interested while you drone on about your duties and r...

Answering Services Explained

Answering services are what business and others used before the phone companies offered voice mail and before there were answering machines. Answering services are businesses that answer the phones and take messages for people, whether they are doctors, lawyers, or other businesses and individuals. Instead of leaving a message at the sound of the tone, you leave your message with a human being who takes down the relevant information and passes it on to their client. These people can answer questions and can usually reach the party you are calling in case of an emergency.

Why Most Websites Don't Work and What to Do About It

Unfortunately, lack of quality traffic is the number one reason why many small business websites fail. Most people would agree that getting your website up and running is relatively easy - the hard part is getting people to visit your website and take action.

Bookmark it: