Should the press be limited or given the full freedom, on both speech and writing? Argue for your stand. Thanks.
The press should have full freedom to a degree. If they say anything thats not true or slanderous then thats when they should lose that freedom.
Absolutely. Freedom of Assembly, Petition, Religion, SPEECH , and PRESS. It's what our country was founded upon. America represents freedom---at least, based on the Constitution, it should.
In a perfect World I'd say yes, however we as humans can't be trusted to not invade other's privacy, (you wouldn't be saying this if a reporter was taking pictures of your family, through the window, in their underwear using a telephoto lens) to tell the truth, (again were you libeled, with no recourse for suing for an apology, you wouldn't be so gung ho). I'd also say, that many people do not understand who controls the news we digest. One or two oligarchs controlling the news industry...that can't be good when they will print news that obviously favours one political party or point of view when it is blatantly untrue. Press should have a level of freedom, and ability to report news, but at the same time need to have some form of control, were they to step over the line.
The % (Press courtroom instances cost) has rules (a code of habit) that became put in place to restrict what they press can and can't print. Diana's dying brought about the %to bypass over their regulations after the courts had mentioned that the paparazzi have been partly in charge for diana's dying so now they could desire to be careful approximately what they print. besides the shown fact that, the click will do something for a good tale, because of fact it sells papers. All they care approximately is the money interior the financial employer.
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 agree with Madison when he stated: The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state; but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when published. Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public; to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press: but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous, or illegal, he must take the consequences of his own temerity. Society has a right to decide what they view, hear, see, and read. Society can condemn what they deem improper without government interference.
