First Amendment Protection of Journalists Essay Example for Free

First Amendment Protection of Journalists Essay The First Amendment of the US Constitution has special provisions for freedom of expression speech and press. It has clearly defined that The freedom of speech and of the press, and the right of the people peaceably to assemble and consult for their common good, and to apply to the Government for redress of grievances, shall not be infringed† (FindLaw, 2004). There were several instances of debates and discussions on the protection of journalism under the provisions of the First Amendment. Constitutionalists agree on the point that the liberty of the press is essential for the well-being of a free state. Every person has the right to express his feelings before the public. Journalists do the same thing. They investigate on their own and provide the information regarding the policies of the government and other agencies to the public. If a journalist is not allowed to express his opinions, then it is a clear infringement into his rights. Journalists always have always used anonymous sources to gather information. It has become a part of investigational journalism. However, several times in the past, press has been subjected to castigation for reporting about the secret policies of the government quoting anonymous sources. There was always pressure on the journalists to reveal their confidential sources. Need of the First Amendment Protection of Journalists The recent incident involving former New York Times reporter, Judith Miller has unleashed a debate on the protection of confidential sources in journalism. Pulitzer Prize winner Judith Miller had to spend 85 days in jail for refusing to identify confidential sources during the investigation into the disclosure of a CIA agents identity. Eventually, she was forced to step down after working 28 years at the Times (The New York Times, 2005). It is always believed that a journalist has the right to protect the identity of a source. It may be true that this right is not absolute. There should be a limit on that to prevent any misuse of journalism expression. However, punishing the journalists for their reporting is not a right solution. The identification of anonymous sources may lead to suppression of information. The Times believes that First Amendment right to speech includes a right for the journalists in which they are not supposed to speak during the testimony in a criminal investigation. The freedom of the press to publish without any limitation is one of the fundamental aspects of the First Amendment. However, recent incidents such as the detention of Miller raised serious questions. If the journalists will be forced to reveal their sources of information, then it is unlikely that they would get more information in future. Persons, who reveal the secrets anonymously, will never provide useful information to the journalists if their identities are disclosed before the investigation agency. They would be forced to conceal the information to themselves. As a result, the public will never know the truth. If we look at the history, the First Amendment supported the freedom of press and the journalists in some instances. â€Å"In the Pentagon Papers case in 1971, the US government attempted to prevent the New York Times and the Washington Post from publishing classified documents about the Vietnam War. The government claimed that publication of such documents would jeopardize the foreign policy and prolong the war. However, the Court did not buy the arguments and dismissed them as speculations† (Powe, 1991). However, in most of the cases, it has been noticed that the First Amendment do not provide adequate protection to the journalists. Even the judges expressed their concern in some cases. In a 2002 judgment, Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said, First Amendment freedoms are most in danger when the government seeks to control thought or to justify its laws for that impermissible end. The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought† (ALA, 2002). The International Federation of Journalists has accused the United States administration of suppressing the freedom of expression by forcing journalists to disclose confidential sources of information. They believe that this is a violation of the First Amendment. In most of the cases, journalists are bullied by judges and investigating agencies. A number of high-profile legal actions against journalists have sparked a national campaign among press freedom campaigners and journalists. Journalists feel that they have stood up firmly for the First Amendment principles (IFJ, 2004). The identification of sources has become very common in the US history. Several judgments in the recent past, asked the journalists to reveal the identity of their sources. Also, in some instances they ruled that it is the right of journalists to protect their sources. The differences of opinions have made one thing clear that there is a need for a clear and visible law that would protect the rights of journalism and journalists. It is to be remembered that by protecting their sources, the journalists are just saving the whistleblowers from facing retribution. If the confidential sources are exposed, common people will be deprived of their right to know the truth. Need of a National Shield Law Earl Caldwell, a correspondent for the New York Times, was the only journalist at the Lorraine Motel in Memphis when Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated in 1968. He established a rapport with the Black Panthers and had access to their confidential conversations with them. When FBI asked him to provide the notes, Earl Caldwell, a correspondent for the New York Times, was the only journalist at the Lorraine Motel in Memphis when Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated in 1968. He established a rapport with the Black Panthers and had access to their confidential conversations with them (Montiel, 2005). When FBI asked him to provide the notes, he declined and took the mater to the Court. In 1970, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recognized the existence of a protection for the journalists under the First Amendment. It rules that Caldwell did not have to identify his sources unless the government could show the real need for his testimony and the proof that such information could not be obtained elsewhere. The government appealed against this order in the Supreme Court. After long discussions, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 against Caldwell. This is an example how the judges themselves were not sure about the provisions of the First Amendment. His fight against the government led to the expansion of state shield laws protecting journalists (Montiel, 2005). The Caldwell case became the most famous one related to the First Amendment and freedom of press. It stressed on the need for federal law to protect the journalists from indictment and harassment. The state shield laws were expanded and associations were formed. â€Å"After the Caldwell case, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press was formed, which worked for preservation of journalistic rights under the First Amendment† (Montiel, 2005). It has been noticed that in the cases related to the protection of journalists under the First Amendment, judges expressed different opinions. Hence, it is very much important to have a common law which bring all of them into a common platform and provide relief to the journalists who often suffer for no fault. It is their compulsion and responsibility to protect the confidentiality of sources as they obtain the information on that promise. Contradiction in federal court rulings forced many state courts and legislatures to interpret the First Amendment from different angles. To protect journalists from unjustified testimonies, 31 states and the District of Columbia have passed laws known as shield laws (First Amendment Center, 2004). However, state shield laws often fail to guarantee the protection to the journalists. In todays digital world, most of the journalists work through television and Internet, thus securing a good name on the national and international stage. Without a national shield law, it will not be possible for them work independently without any prosecution for concealing their sources. A national shield law will not only benefit the journalists, but also it will do justice to the public. If the journalists fail to protect their private communication with people who provide useful information anonymously, it will be an infringement into their personal rights. Nobody can expect the common men to stand up openly and divulge the secrets that public should know. They would definitely be concerned about their own safety and security. Hence, such people, called as whistleblowers depend on journalists to air their grievances against the system and corrupt authorities. If their identities are not protected, it will deter others from providing useful information to expose the corrupt officials and leaders. Recently, Senator Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn proposed the legislation for protecting the journalists under the First Amendment. If the law is passed, journalists would not be forced to reveal their sources. Their notes, photographs and other materials would be protected from the federal courts, government and investigating agencies. The bill says that a court could force a journalist to disclose the sources only if that cannot be obtained anywhere else and are related to public interest (First Amendment Center, 2004). In the past few years, there have been several instances of judges threatening the journalists with fines or jails if they fail to reveal sources. The state shield laws will not serve the purpose of freedom of press. It is necessary formulate a national shield law to deal with such issues. The above bill introduced by Senator Dodd could be an important step on this regard. Conclusion In the wake of the current debate over the protection of journalists under the First Amendment, we have to look on this issue with a humanitarian approach. The press is always called as the mirror of the society. Journalists are the true soldiers of the press who always intend to uphold its value and ethics. Protecting their rights is very important for the wellbeing of the society. Prosecution of journalists for a no-crime may not augur well for people’s belief in constitutional rights. Adequate steps should be taken to pass a strong law that would protect the journalists and the confidentiality of their sources. They are well within their rights not to disclose their sources and they should not be compelled to do that. It should be kept in mind that whatever they are doing is for the benefit of the public and the society. Bibliography Allen, David S. , Jensen, Robert, editors. (1995). Freeing the First Amendment: Critical Perspectives on Freedom of Expression. New York: New York University Press. American Library Association (ALA). (2002). Retrieved 15 November 2005.

Structuralism Developed by Ferdinand de Saussure Essays -- literary the

Structuralism was developed by Ferdinand de Saussure in the mid-twentieth century (Cuddon and Preston 923). This creation was brought on, in part, by the French existentialism period and is often combined with the semiotic theory of literary criticism; both are the source of development for other literary criticisms from the formalist schools of thought. As the name suggests, structuralism examines the structure of the work, investigating the ramifications of the organizations of literatures (McManus, 1998). As an image to portray this idea is examining the structure of a building and comparing it to the structures of other buildings in its surroundings, and then subsequently comparing the common features of those buildings to buildings from other cultures and what those architectural discrepancies represent (Brizee and Tompkins, 2011). Structuralism employs terms to help in the understanding of one of the most complex literary theories (McManus, 1998; Brizee and Tompkins, 2011). All words in any given language are either classified as parole or langue (McManus, 1998). Barbara McManus is an expert on literary criticism, has authored two books on the subject, is a retired professor of Classics Emerita, including the topics of Feminism and general literary criticism courses, from College of New Rochelle who defines the two terms as â€Å"any particular meaningful use of spoken or written language (also called ‘performance’)† and â€Å"the underlying system of sounds, forms, and rules of combination of a language which make meaningful communication possible (a speaker's implicit knowledge of this system is called ‘competence’),† respectively (McManus, 2003; McManus, 1998). McManus later states that â€Å"[Structuralists are] interested in langu... ...ll D. Moyers. The Power of Myth. New York: Doubleday, 1988. Print. "Cormac McCarthy on James Joyce and Punctuation." Interview by Oprah Winfrey.Oprah.com. OPRAH, 01 June 2008. Web. 05 Feb. 2014. . Cuddon, J. A., and Claire Preston. The Penguin Dictionary of Literary Terms and Literary Theory. London: Penguin, 1999. Print. McCarthy, Cormac. The Road. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2006. Print. McManus, Barbara F. "Barbara McManus Home Page." CNR.com. College of New Rochelle, July 2003. Web. 4 Feb. 2014. McManus, Barbara F. "Structuralist Approaches." Structuralist Approaches. The College of New Rochelle, Oct. 1998. Web. 16 Jan. 2014. Murfin, Ross, and Supryia M. Ray. "VirtuaLit: Critical Approaches." VirtuaLit: Critical Approaches. Bedford/St. Martin's, n.d. Web. 04 Feb. 2014.

Religion as a conservative force Essay

There Christian churches manage to force their conservative values onto masses of people. But, within the last 100 years the Anglican church has been very progressive in that the stance the church has on a lot of modern issues has changed. The churches stance on abortion has changed from absolutely against God to acceptable in some cases. And, although they still see sex before marriage as wrong they are no longer as condemning about it. In this example religion as a conservative force is dying as modern values take over religion and religion can no longer reinstate traditional ones. In contrast the Roman Catholic church, while being Christian, is extremely conservative and hasn t changed its stance on most contempory issues. They still believe that abortion is wrong unless its harmful to the mother, that sex before marriage is wrong in all cases and that contraception is not allowed. The Catholic church is still incredibly prominent and important within many countries and so they view that religion is a conservative force is still true. When discussing whether religion is a conservative force it is really a discussion about different religious institutions being conservative. Within Christianity, different churches and interpretations differ greatly regarding being conservative or progressive. In its day, Protestantism was a very progressive force and Catholicism was very conservative, even though they both were Christian churches they were either conservative or progressive. Traditionally sects are not seen as a conservative force. Q. an values. There Christian churches manage to foAssess the view that religion is a conservative force. Religion can be defined in many different ways, from the traditional view of a belief in God, contrasting with the functionalist view that religion only needs to function and help people and does not require a God. Religion can also differ in size and beliefs and, especially in modern countries, how progressive or conservative they are. Conservative religion s religion which religion which conserves a countries values and norms. The Christian religion does this in many western countries as it embodies many of the values which those countries hold. According to functionalists and Durkheim, by religion holding these values it makes them more sacred and re-enforces these values. According to Parsons religion also generalises these values into society. The values which are generally preserved by religion in these countries are very conservative ones. This is where religion is against social change, maintaining the status quo. This is what functionalists see as necessary for keeping and creating social unity. However, this differs greatly from progressive religion. Religion which is progressive brings about change within societies and usually holds very little of the same values which the society does, and by doing so doesn t reinforce them. Religion which usually falls under the category of progressive religion is very New Age, but they do not all challenge the values in western countries. This is where religion helps social change. Churches such as the Anglican church within Christianity are incredibly traditionally and conservative in the way that they hold very much the same values which they held including the views on certain behaviours which they traditionally held. Churches such as the Christian churccts see themselves as progressive within society and institutions which challenge a country s norms instead of conforming to them or agreeing with them. The tend to be very New Age in their beliefs and deviate from traditional conservative religions not just in values but in the way they recruit, have a hierarchy and conduct religious business. As many traditional religions are loosing members sects are rapidly growing in size, and although many don t make it through the first few years, those which do have increasing popularity and manage to recruit members which are more willing to be a force within society. This is where religion is becoming an increasingly progressive force within societies. Many sects are even progressive with how they recruit members. As well as the traditional route of recruiting one-on-one they also do so online. This is a very progressive method as it differs greatly from the usual method of bringing people into religion from birth and ado lance generally through religious ceremony. But, not all sects to this. The increasingly common Christian sect within Britain and American ( ) recruits members from birth within families, instating their values from birth. So, sects sometimes are conservative but in different ways. This shows that even new religions can be conservative and that the force of conservative religion remains strong. Weber look into Protestants and social change found that religion did result in the change of values and norms within British society at the time. Protestantism changed laws and made things such as dancing illegal. But, Protestantism, in many ways, was more traditional than what was in place before. If conservatism is defined as traditional values is was in fact a conservative force that took over Britain and many other countries within Western Europe. This contradicts the view that conservative religion reinforces values and norms with societies. Marxists argue that religion is a conservative force as it does not bring about social change. Many of the traditional values which many churches hold are values which are the same as middle class or are to the benefit of middle class. As they do not change Marxists believe that religion is the force behind this and are therefore a conservative, not a progressive force. Fundamentalists are traditionally seen as conservative religious forces. Taylor defines involvement in fundamentalism as those who believe that there is a challenge to the ultimate authority which the believe in; people who do not tolerate this challenge, they can reaffirm their belief in that authority and oppose those who challenge their beliefs. The reason fundamentalist are usually found to be religious is that according to this view fundamentalism involves the conservative reassertion of beliefs and, usually, action against any change. Conservative fundamentalists are most notably found to be a big force in the USA. They may hold traditional conservative Christian values but they are a progressive movement as they see the USA as declining away from the those values and especially the world. This movement is a return to old values and the reinstatement of them, such as a return to creationalism within schools. This movement is also forceful in that it holds a lot of power with America and its electoral system. President Bust who was elected for two terms manage to get elected mainly on a traditional conservative values campaign, showing that the conservative religion movement is huge within such a powerful advanced modern country. But even conservative fundamentalists can bring about progress change as what they believe are traditional values can differ from what other people believe for traditional values. This is especially true with Islam as within Islam are many different fundamentalist groups, all of whom are interpreting true Islam in different ways. The Sacred Brethren is also an example of a sect which can be seen as conservative and yet does rapidly change. When the leader of this sect died and someone else took over its values changed and although it remained a conservative force it was still resulting in change, not just reinstating its traditional values. And, fundamentalist can be progressive and bring about social change in other ways. In Iran the bringing back of traditional Islamic values brought major change as it overthrew the Iranian Government, in-stating new laws and values. Even tough it was a return to traditional values and came within a conservative force it was still progressive in bringing about change. Religion obviously differs a lot, not just in belief, and it can be spilt into progressive or conservative. But, even with this it can differ when you take into account the conservative religions which bring about change. Even though the evidence points towards sects and progressive religions being the future for this world as they increase their membership as conservative religions decrease their membership. But in countries such as the USA it is conservative religions which are increasing in power, which means the conservative religion and more power within societies. s manage to get elected mainly on a traditional conservative values campaign, showing that the conservative religion movement is huge within such a powerful advanced modern country.

Gigantopithecus Facts and Figures

Name: Gigantopithecus (Greek for giant ape); prounced jie-GAN-toe-pith-ECK-usHabitat: Woodlands of AsiaHistorical Epoch: Miocene-Pleistocene (six million to 200,000 years ago)Size and Weight: Up to nine feet tall and 1,000 poundsDiet: Probably omnivorousDistinguishing Characteristics: Large size; large, flat molars; four-footed posture About Gigantopithecus The literal 1,000-pound gorilla sitting in the corner of a natural history museum, the appropriately named Gigantopithecus was the largest ape that ever lived, not quite King Kong-sized but, at up to half a ton or so, much bigger than your average lowland gorilla. Or, at least, thats the way this prehistoric primate has been reconstructed; frustratingly, practically everything we know about Gigantopithecus is based on its scattered, fossilized teeth and jaws, which first came to the worlds attention when they were sold in Chinese apothecary shops in the first half of the 20th century. Paleontologists arent even sure how this colossus moved; the consensus is that it must have been a ponderous knuckle-walker, like modern gorillas, but a minority opinion holds that Gigantopithecus may have been capable of walking on its two hind feet. Another mysterious thing about Gigantopithecus is when, exactly, it lived. Most experts date this ape from Miocene to mid-Pleistocene eastern and southeastern Asia, about six million to one million years B.C., and it may have survived in small populations until as late as 200,000 or 300,000 years ago. Predictably, a small community of cryptozoologists insists that Gigantopithecus never went extinct, and persists in the present day, high up in the Himalayan Mountains, like the mythical Yeti, better known in the west as the Abominable Snowman! As fearsome as it must have looked, Gigantopithecus seems to have been mostly herbivorous--we can infer from its teeth and jaws that this primate subsisted on fruits, nuts, shoots and, just possibly, the occasional small, quivering mammal or lizard. (The presence of an unusual number of cavities in Gigantopithecus teeth also points to a possible diet of bamboo, much like that of a modern Panda Bear.) Given its size when fully grown, an adult Gigantopithecus would not have been an active target of predation, though the same cant be said for sick, juvenile or aged individuals, which figured on the lunch menu of various tigers, crocodiles, and hyenas. Gigantopithecus comprises three separate species. The first and largest, G. blacki, lived in southeastern Asia starting in the middle Pleistocene epoch and shared its territory, toward the end of its existence, with various populations of Homo erectus, the immediate precursor of Homo sapiens. The second, G. bilaspurensis, dates to six million years ago, during the Miocene epoch, about the same early time frame as the oddly named G. giganteus, which was only about half the size of its G. blacki cousin.