In the political cartoon, a journalist gathers information and is probably going to report it publicly. A police officer is questioning his Freedom of Press because he is searching the bag and trying to find sources that might not be what he wants to see. The thing is, the journalist has the right to publicly display any information he acquires and he cannot be questioned and or arrested.
According to Amendment 1 of the Constitution, 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; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I personally think alot of problems would be settled because if the Freedom of Press didn't exist, there probably would be less false information. Alot of homework for students like me would be easier since everything on the web would be the truth. For instance, if posts could not be published on wikipedia without legal notarization, homework would be much easier; consequently, wikipedia's entire structure may have been completely false. Leaving children with no source.
Question. Is wikipedia the press, or an encyclopedia? Another question. If freedom of press is terminated, who then polices the police and politicians? Would Nixon have been convicted without the Washington Post? Would Blagojevich have been indicted without the Chicago Tribune?
ReplyDelete