The Philosophical Foundations of the Freedom of the Press
In ancient Athens, parrhesia, loosely meaning a frank exchange of views, and isegoria; referring to the equal access to speak before the city’s political institutions; were central concepts of the city-state’s democratic ideology. The ancient Athenians were free to say almost anything in courts and assemblies. To an extent therefore, dissent and subversive views were tolerated.
The freedom of the press was articulated for the first time when across Europe, governments established control over printing presses by licensing printing and trade in books, starting in England in the 1600s. In 1644, John Milton addressed Areopagitica, his essay named after a hill in Athens that was the site of many of the city-state’s public institutions, to England’s Parliament. The essay, which was published without a license, argued for the liberty of unlicensed printing and is among the most influential defences of the freedom of speech. The argument rests on the importance of free communication in the quest for truth.
Exposure to falsehood was a way of unearthing the truth by understanding what not the truth is. God, he argued, endowed every person with the reason, free will, and conscience to judge ideas for themselves. Licensing may not protect the truth because it would always prevail in a tussle with falsehood.
In this way, Milton framed future discussions about the freedom of speech when he argued against pre-censorship. John Stuart Mill developed on Milton’s ideas in On Liberty, published in 1859. He argued that liberty-of which the freedom of speech was an essential component-was necessary for progress in science, law or politics. Free discussion, he argued, is necessary to prevent the “deep slumber of a decided opinion”. Like Milton, he felt that discussion would drive the march of truth and that by considering false views, the basis of true views could be re- affirmed. For Mills, the only instance in which speech could be justifiably suppressed was to prevent harm from a clear and direct threat.
The next leap in the defence of the freedom of the press came with the development of democratic forms of government. A form of government where the people govern themselves requires an informed electorate; and for that, there must not be any constraints on the free flow of information and ideas. Moreover, the role of the freedom of speech in achieving the informed consent of the people to the acts of a democratically elected government is today the strongest philosophical defence of the freedom of speech. In democracies, one believes the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press to function as safety valves; allowing for the expression of differences of opinion without those differences threatening the foundations of the state.
The philosophy of restricting the freedom of the press
There are several arguments for restricting the freedom of speech. These arguments can be applied to the freedom of the press as well. Sometimes, the freedom of speech conflicts with other rights. For example, one person’s right to privacy. However, In these situations, we may have to think about a hierarchy of rights and about how we can balance these rights.
Under the ‘harm principle’ articulated by John Stuart Mill; harm caused to others is reason enough to restrict the freedom of speech. There is also the ‘harm principle’ because offence is not as serious as harm. However, the latter principle finds application in situations involving obscene and pornographic speech; and both principles can apply to situations involving speech that can cause prejudice to criminal proceeding or incite violence. Another route of enquiry is that of looking at restrictions on the freedom of the press through the prism of the role of the press in a democracy. This can help us navigate situations such as a concentration of media power and the phenomenon of ‘paid news’.
The Freedom of the Press in Constitutional Documents and International Instruments
In England, the Magna Carta issued in 1215 was the first proclamation; that the subjects of the British crown had legal rights; and that law bound the monarch. Moreover, the Bill of Rights, passed by the British Parliament in 1689; further, codified the civil and political rights of all men and granted them the freedom of speech.