US Enjoys Freedom of the Press … to a Point

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.