What is this "Freedom of the Press"?

New Zealand Listener, Volume 15, Issue 366, 28 June 1946, Page 12

What is this "Freedom of the Press"?

6¢ RESS freedom reaffirmed at London meeting." So ran a heading over a report of the Imperial Press Conference from London the other day. We are constantly hearing about this "freedom of the Press." What is it? Where does it reside? Is it a legal concept? Is it in the Constitution? What exactly does it mean? _There is, I think, a good deal of ignorance on the subject. Many people probably think that freedom of the Press is a definite legal enactment, which’ gives the Press certain rights: Two statements at the Imperial Press Conference go to the root of the matter. Brendan Bracken, formerly Minister of Information, said "freedom of the Press was a right which was not vested in the Press but which belonged to the public." Major Astor, chief proprietor of The Times, put it in this way, that "liberty for journalists was not a privilege, but the fundamental liberty of the subject." These statements express a most important truth. Broadly speaking, the Press does not enjoy any more rights of expression than does the citizen. "Freedom of the Press" is not written into the British Constitution, or the New Zealand Constitution, or, so far as I know, into the Constitution of any Dominion. It is expressed in the American Constitution, but the application of Eng-

lish Common Law, which was taken to America from England, and common sense, have produced a situation in the United States much like our own. I don’t think you will find the ter:n "Freedom of the Press" in any British Act. It is not a legal maxim. Freedom of expression derives from the old English Common Law, which we have inherited. According to this law, a man is entitled to say or write what he pleases, provided he does not break certain laws, governing blasphemy, indecency, or sedi. tion, or does not injure another citizen. If he injures another citizen, the injured person has the right to proceed at civil law. It lies with a jury of average men -the defendant’s peers-to say whether the right of free expression has been abused. In other words, the right of free expression is the right to say what a body of citizens decide you may say. The jury is a very important element in the business. In the 18th Century, when judges tried to suppress freedom of expression, juries stood up against them, and did a good deal to win the position that is held to-day. If a private citizen wishes to criticise a person or an institution, he is at liberty to publish his criticism. He exercises the same right and exposes himself to the same risk as a newspaper. The journalist is only the private citizen with wider opportunities and a much heavier load of responsibility, — (continued on next page)

(continued from previous page) All this, I suggest, makes such concepts as freedom of the Press, freedom of expression, all the more vital to a free society. They are everybody’s concern. because they are evervbodv’s right.

A.

M.