Today's NYT includes an editorial (from the Editorial Board) entitled, "The Uninhibited Press, 50 Years Later." The piece celebrates the 50th anniversary of the historic Supreme Court case, NYT v. Sullivan (I mentioned the case last week in our discussion of commercial speech). Here is an excerpt:
But the government can upset the Sullivan case’s delicate balance by aggressively shutting down avenues of inquiry, as the Obama administration has done to an extreme degree in prosecuting those suspected of leaking classified documents, and even seizing reporters’ records. Uninhibited and robust criticism can go only so far without meaningful access to information. Still, American press freedoms rank among the broadest in the world. Citizens and media organizations in countries from China to India to Britain do not enjoy the same protections. In many parts of the world, journalists are censored, harassed, imprisoned and worse, simply for doing their jobs and challenging or criticizing government officials. In this area of the law, at least, the United States remains a laudable example.In addition to shaping freedom of expression law as it relates to commercial speech, the case also dealt with libel law, a topic we'll spend some time on later this semester. In the mean time, what do you think of the celebration of American's protections for freedom of expression? Are US journalists as free today as the NYT proclaims?
