It is without doubt that freedoms of the press and speech need to be protected, but there are undisputed limits to these freedoms, limits that often come into play when national security is threatened.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
When freedom of the press is threatened, the United States should be leading efforts to protect it.
As to the media, they are protected by the First Amendment, as they should be.
We must protect the very things that make America so special - most certainly including our civil liberties. But we cannot do so without strong national security and a thoughtful and informed discourse.
When the public's right to know is threatened, and when the rights of free speech and free press are at risk, all of the other liberties we hold dear are endangered.
It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press. This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.
Some of the press who speak loudly about the freedom of the press are themselves the enemies of freedom. Countless people dare not say a thing because they know it will be picked up and made a song of by the press. That limits freedom.
We have to protect all journalists, and journalists have to be allowed to do their jobs.
The political core of any movement for freedom in the society has to have the political imperative to protect free speech.
I don't think that there is absolute freedom of the press. We operate under laws - against libel, for instance. The idea that there is some absolute press freedom is kind of a myth.
The freedom of the press works in such a way that there is not much freedom from it.
No opposing quotes found.