Freedom of the press

First Amendment

The Freedom Of The Press To Cover The War In Iraq

The following editorial was written as a protest by, Dawn Helen, CEO of City Daily News, to the President of the United States in protest of his recent press conference announcing a ban on media coverage of the Iraq War.

It is written in the U.S. Constitution that "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." U.S. Const. amend. I, art. III. It follows that, our freedom of the press is guaranteed by the First Amendment and the right of our reporters to provide media coverage to the citizens of the United States is being violated by your ban, Mr. President. Sir, we understand your concern regarding security for our troops and national security in general, however, it is our position that an outright ban on our First Amendment freedom of the press to cover the War in Iraq openly takes away the rights that we have been guaranteed by our forefathers when they drafted the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution. Because of this, Sir, we request that you lift the ban and permit press coverage of the War in Iraq. Mr. President, in conjunction with our legal department, we have researched and located several legal sources support that our First Amendment Freedom of the Press should not be abridged under these circumstances.

We use the case of Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957), to illustrate. While the decision of this case was later overruled, this case provides historical background as to how the Supreme Court has viewed governmental intrusion into our First Amendment Rights. The Court examined the issue of whether obscenity should be protected under the First Amendment and examined the broader question as to when the government should be allowed to regulate our freedom of the speech and the press. The Court reasoned, "The fundamental freedoms of speech and press have contributed greatly to the development and well-being of our free society and are indispensable to its continued growth. The door barring federal and state intrusion into this area cannot be left ajar; it must be kept tightly closed and opened only the slightest crack necessary to prevent encroachment upon more important interests."

The Court limited the government's power to regulate freedom of speech and the press in terms of obscenity. We use this case to illustrate why the government should not be permitted to limit press coverage. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the door permitting government to infringe on First Amendment freedoms should be kept tightly closed and should only be opened to prevent encroachment on more private interests. Sir, we would argue that while the government interest in protecting national security is an important interest, the Roth case does not justify the government encroachment on our Freedom of the press. The Roth case provides that the government can encroach on the freedom of the press only if it is attempting to protect other rights from being infringed on. In our case, Mr. President, none of our rights are at risk. The ban on media coverage of the War is not in response to a perceived loss of rights by the people, but based on a perceived threat to the country. The Roth case does not make provision for infringement on our rights under these circumstances and therefore the infringement is not justified.

Even though the Roth case was overruled by Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) regarding the issue of whether obscenity is protected under the First Amendment, the reasoning behind the Miller case still supports our position. The Miller Court held that, "in the area of freedom of speech and press the courts must always remain sensitive to any infringement on genuinely serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific expression." Therefore, while the Court excluded obscenity as protected speech, the Court at the same time established a standard for what continues to remain protected under the First Amendment. It is our position that because the press coverage of the War maintains literary and political expression, it should remain protected by the First Amendment.