US Enjoys Freedom of the Press … to a Point

Published in People's Daily
(China) on 16 May 2013
by Shen Dingli (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Nathan Hsu. Edited by Laurence Bouvard.
The Associated Press has raised strong objections with the U.S. government regarding the seizure of its journalists’ and editors' phone records by the Department of Justice several days ago. Following the incident, the world has engaged in a wide discussion over its views on freedom of the press in the U.S., as well as on how to define the boundaries and limitations involved.

The U.S. prides itself on its freedom of the press, and Americans do indeed enjoy relatively unrestricted media. It has been beneficial to limiting abuses of power by the government and has had a positive impact in upholding social justice. However, the country has never experienced "absolute" freedom of the press. When journalists embedded with the military reported on the U.S. invasion of Iraq, outgoing information from war zones was not only filtered by the journalists' own judgment and self-restraint, but was also subject to censorship by the Department of Defense Press Office. Obviously, the White House also withheld information from its citizens and the media as it considered options for invading Iraq in 2002. At that time, several U.S. mainstream media outlets, including traditionally liberal ones, also paid little heed to civil liberties and freedoms as they rushed to throw their support behind the government's "preemptive war" in Iraq.

In October 2001, the U.S. passed the Patriot Act, again using prevention of terrorism as a pretext for further extending the DOJ's power. Law enforcement agencies consequently gained the authority to search phone, email, medical, financial and other types of records. Within the law, there are several sections that were initially enacted as temporary measures but have now been extended twice over. This suggests that the prevailing winds in the U.S. remain favorable to viewing reductions in individual privacy as an acceptable price to pay in exchange for the common good of fighting terrorism and protecting the nation. The woes of AP journalists today are simply a product of circumstance. Of course, we might expect that once attacks on the U.S. by international terrorists truly subside, related sections within the Patriot Act will subsequently follow suit and make their exit from the stage of history. When that time comes, the AP will be able to breathe easy once more.

The U.S. has always lacked absolute freedom of the press, especially in this "age of terrorism." Of course, this is not to say that the U.S. government can exceed the bounds of its authority as it pleases. When monitoring the release of information, the government should do its utmost to safeguard the rightful liberties of U.S. citizens, including those of the media. If it becomes necessary to continue or expand oversight, approval should first be gained from the DOJ as per the law. Moreover, the American people, including journalists, should also exercise judgment and self-restraint in this age of terrorism and both be understanding of and accept an appropriate level of government oversight. This is the authority entrusted to the government by law.

Apart from the misconceptions of some Americans who believe that they gained unlimited freedoms after the passage of constitutional amendments pertaining to the protection of civil liberties and limitations on governmental authority, there are also many others throughout the world who mistakenly believe that an absolute freedom of the press exists in the U.S. What is more ridiculous is that, despite its own lack of pure media freedom, the U.S. government often chastises other states for their shortcomings in that regard.

The truth of the matter is that no country has absolute freedoms, and freedom of the press is no exception. No state would allow press freedoms that might upturn morality, harm society or be a detriment to national security, public order and vital social customs. Additionally, the economies, politics and levels of societal development in different countries vary widely, and degrees of press freedom will likewise differ. As countries develop and people further expand their freedoms, the international community should understand that these are steps that should be encouraged but never forced.

The author is a professor and deputy dean of Fudan University’s Institute of International Studies.


  日前,就记者和编辑遭到美国司法部窃听一事,美联社已向美国政府提出强烈抗议。在此背景下,如何看待美国的新闻自由,如何界定新闻自由的边界,备受世界热议。

  美国标榜新闻自由,也确有一定新闻自由,且这种自由有助于限制政府对公权力的滥用,对匡扶社会正义有着积极意义,但这个国家从来没有“绝对的”新闻自由。在当记者随军报导美军进攻伊拉克时,任何从战地发出的新闻报导不仅需要记者自律,而且受到部队新闻管制部门的审查。显然,当美国在2002年酝酿攻打伊拉克时,白宫并未让国民与媒体享受知悉背景事实的自由。当时,包括传统自由派的一些美国主流媒体,也显得并非那么在乎民权、自由,而是匆匆支持了政府对伊“先发制人”。

  2001年10月美国通过的《爱国者法案》,更是直接以防止恐怖主义的名义,扩大了美国司法部门的权限,警察机关因此有权搜查电话、电邮通讯、医疗、财务和其他种类的记录。这项法案中有多项条款,起初是作为临时法律被通过的,如今已被两度延续。这表明接受以削减个人隐私为代价,来保护国家的反恐公益,仍是美国的主流。如今美联社从业人员的遭遇,就是这种背景下的产物。当然,大家可以期待,当国际恐怖主义对美国的攻击真正退潮之时,《爱国者法案》中一些条款也将退出历史舞台。那时,美联社的烦恼将要减轻不少。

  美国本无绝对新闻自由,尤其是在“反恐时代”。当然,这不意味美国政府可以随意超越“边限”。政府应在监控通讯时,尽力保护包括媒体从业人员在内的美国公民的正当民权——如需持续与深度监视,则需依法事先向司法部门申请批准。而包括媒体在内的美国民众,在反恐时代也应自律,理解并接受政府的适度监控——这可能是法律赋予政府的权力。

  除了一些美国民众误会了新闻自由,以为美国宪法中有了关于保护公民自由、限制政府权力的相关修正案后,就获得了无限的自由;世界各地也有不少人士真以为美国存在绝对新闻自由。更可笑的是,尽管自身并不存在纯粹的新闻自由,美国政府却往往对他国指手画脚,批评他国新闻自由的缺失。

  事实上,任何国家都没有绝对的自由,新闻自由也概莫例外。没有哪个国家会允许颠倒是非、危害社会、损害国家安全和公序良俗的新闻自由。而且,不同国家的政经与社会发展水平不一,新闻自由的开放水平也很可能互有长短。当人们随着国家的发展而更多扩展自由之时,国际社会也应理解这种扩展只是应被鼓励而非予以强迫。

  (作者为复旦大学国际问题研究院教授、副院长)
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Spain: Spain’s Defense against Trump’s Tariffs

Germany: Trump’s Offer and Trump’s Sword

Austria: Maybe Trump’s Tariff Bludgeon Was Good for Something after All

Australia: Played by Vladimir Putin, a ‘Weary’ Donald Trump Could Walk away from Ukraine

Australia: Trump Often Snaps at Journalists. But His Latest Meltdown Was Different

Topics

Germany: Trump-Putin Call: Nothing but Empty Talk

Austria: The Harvard President’s Voluntary Pay Cut Is a Strong Signal

Canada: No, Joly, We Don’t Want America’s Far-Left Academic Refugees

Germany: Trump’s Selfishness

Austria: Trump Ignores Israel’s Interests during Gulf Visit

Germany: Trump’s Offer and Trump’s Sword

Canada: A Guide To Surviving the Trump Era

Related Articles

Hong Kong: The Lessons of World War II: The Real World Importance of Resisting Hegemony

Mexico: The Trump Problem

Taiwan: Making America Great Again and Taiwan’s Crucial Choice

Venezuela: Vietnam: An Outlet for China

Germany: US Companies in Tariff Crisis: Planning Impossible, Price Increases Necessary