Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom and freedom from interference, and through any media and whether to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of frontiers.

"Twenty-ninth" of the Declaration on the right made the following paper:

......Only by the legal restrictions, only to determine this limit is to ensure the rights and freedoms of others to give due recognition and respect, and adapt to the legitimate needs of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

Similarly, "the European Convention on human rights" (European Convention on Human Rights) the provisions of article tenth:

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right includes freedom and keep to the point, without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers freedom to receive and impart information and ideas. This article does not interfere with the state radio, television, film requirements entity licensed.

But the treaty wording to elaborate on the basic:

The exercise of these free with the obligations and responsibilities, so it can be subject to necessary for rule of law and democratic society form, conditions, restrictions or penalties, purpose is to protect national security, territorial integrity or public safety, prevent the disorder or crime, safeguarding the health or morals, safeguard the reputation of others or rights, to prevent disclosure in confidential information under the condition of, or maintain the judicial authority and impartiality.

Many international documents, conventions and treaties shall act in a similar way, including the "International Covenant on Civil and political rights" (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights), "Africa human rights and people's Charter of rights" (African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights) and "the American Convention on human rights" (American Convention on Human Rights), etc.. The details differ, but they all regard freedom of expression as a fundamental right, and the right to receive regular promulgated to protect equally important social rights legal restrictions.

The freedom of the press "USA according to the first amendment to the Constitution by the explicit protection"

Many countries constitution guarantees freedom of the press. For example, the Belgian constitution article twenty-fifth as early as in 1831, the following provisions:

The press is free; censorship can never be established; don't ask the author, publisher or printer guarantee issued by the. When the author is known and resident in Belgium, both publishers, printing or distributors shall be prosecuted.

In 1791 approved the American first amendment also unequivocally:

Congress shall make no law about the following matters: establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise; 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.

Other countries of the constitution recognizes the right to freedom of expression, but not as an absolute right. For example, the Senegal constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression of eighth, "except for the provisions of the laws and regulations limit". Similarly, the Kyrgyz Republic constitution article thirty-sixth paragraph first explicitly declared, "the mass media is free", but in seventeenth in the second paragraph of this limit:

The Kyrgyz Republic's constitution and law to ensure the rights and freedoms of others, public security and order, territorial integrity and constitutional order and to exercise their rights and freedom to limit. But it shall not affect the essence of constitutional rights and freedoms.

It is fair to say, no country in the world to the free expression of this valuable universal or fundamental rights as absolute. It is in conflict with other considered more important right, will be restricted and correction. Therefore, some press freedom laws may weaken rather than strengthen the protection of the freedom of news media.

"We love Hitler and reason" (The Hitler We Love and Why) a book author and "I killed six million people? "(Did Six Million Really Die?) Publisher Ernst Qing Del under German law sentenced to hate crime

Review -- namely the government imposed on freedom of speech and expression of free media restrictions -- the biggest threat. Review of the various forms of:

• compulsory licensing system;

• rigid pre publication review;

• ban during the legal proceedings pending;

• tax or fee is very expensive;

• revocation legal protection to other industries or citizens usually.

-- such as criminal fines or imprisonment -- for intimidation and muzzling the press agency operation resulting in the possibility of after the publication of sanctions, may be less restrictive measures before any publication.

Relatively subtle, but also cause problems, some impose certain duties or responsibilities on the media regulation. Some countries and democracy requires media published "verifiable fact" or "truth". For example, the Spanish Constitution of twentieth (d) stipulates: "any media freedom to transmit or receiveTrueInformation rights are recognized and protected [emphasis added]".

The government hopes to accurate reporting of course as excusable. In the former dictatorships, lies the propaganda and spread is It is quite common for, the public is eager to learn a variety of facts from many different sources. The basic principle of news ethics is, the reporter should never deliberately spread false news.

However, the accuracy requirements will inevitably lead to more questions: what is the truth? Who decides? The government?

In 2005, Fei Lin Ming Ross (Flemming Rose, in) to make the controversial prophet Mohamed cartoons, cause the public to debate review

An excellent example occurred in September 11, 2009. At that time, the cable news network (CNN) and Fawkes (Fox) cable television network reported that, America Coast Guard (U.S. Coast Guard) has a suspicious boat on the Potomac River in Washington at the The Pentagon, President Barack Obama was not far in the memorial. According to hear from a police scanner information, cable news network using social media tools twitter (Twitter) report: "Obama to visit The Pentagon, the coast guard ship confrontation, police scanner is reported to have fired."

According to the "Chicago Tribune" (Chicago Tribune) reported, two television network spent nearly 30 minutes to confirm, they hear is public radio teletype -- in which someone issued a "bang" sound, and said that "we have spent ten bullets", but that it is a routine training exercise, rather than attack. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs (Robert Gibbs) blame television network of panic, and said: "before we reported such things, the best first." CNN claims, before reporting the incident, the public affairs officials contacted the coast guard, and was told that the coast guard was unaware of any activity on the river. The coast guard has not only to ensure the apology, "we will examine the program and the exercise time".

Critics accused the news media reported that the television network hastily issued, should be announced in detail after verification. But this example shows the plight of news media in the face when breaking news. In an increasingly competitive media market, scoop of the pressure is very big. In a the restless world, not only the mainstream media, but bloggers and other "citizen journalists" can be real time observation of events and reports, The Associated Press (Associated Press) of the ancient motto: "snatches first, but rob accurate" seems less timely.

Cable news network and Fawkes honest mistakes in the report, it should be subject to government sanctions? In USA, the answer is no.. But in other countries, this failure may lead to fines or even revoked license.

The coast guard's event is unsettling, but at least the truth soon white. With global warming, financial or health crisis and other issues, the facts emerge more slowly. Journalists should be how to judge what is true at any particular time? The government or the public for the definition and interpretation of facts and bear what responsibility? In fact, the news work is just one of the methods to determine the truth. In a free society, rely on the public itself, rather than government entities, from a wide range of channels to review the facts, and then deciding what is true.

Another well-known example is, the United Nations Security Council in 1996 called on Rwanda to identify and close it claimed to have incitement to hatred and provoke local mass atrocities radio. This raises an important question: whether the media should be responsible for their viewers, listeners or readers of violence?

The challenge for cognitive world established historical events, may also be punished. In Turkey, there will be a war during the Armenia massacre as genocide is a crime. In 2007, Neo Nazi Ernst Qing Del (Ernst Z ü ndel) issued a denial of the Holocaust happened statement, and thus a violation of criminal law in Germany, was arrested.

When the government issued libel law, prohibit criticism monarch, politicians or other public officials, the national symbol or a race or religion, and then announced what is truth, problems will follow. Dozens of countries around the world, including some countries, some EU countries, the former Soviet Union, Asia, and Latin America Africa, have enacted such laws. Although there are different provisions exactly, but they are quite broad and general, easily used by governments to punish the dissident and stifle criticism.

When pressing the unwelcome publication practices across borders, or is initiated by the non-governmental forces, shows another aspect of the problem. The most notorious example than Iran's spiritual leader, Ayatollah Rukhola Khomeini (Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini) in 1989 February issued a fatwa, reward to kill the British writer Sahlman Rushdie (Salman Rushdie), referring to the novel "the Satanic Verses" (The Satanic Verses) "blasphemy of islam". In 2005 September, Denmark, "jyllands Posten" (Jyllands-Posten) published editorial cartoons depicting the prophet Mohamed, also by the charges of blasphemy, followed by violent protests and threats to the death of the cartoonist. Blasphemy charges not only from the muslim. Until 2008 July, the British House of Lords (House of Lords) to vote to abolish the customary law of blasphemy and blasphemous libel.

The reporter Sheehan (Sheehan) and editor Rosenthal (A.M. Rosenthal) and Greenfield (James L. Greenfield) will be referred to as "part of the contents of the file America The Pentagon" secret government documents made public

In determining the framework for a free press, a useful starting point is to consider the basic rights of journalists, do the job should have. They can include: no prior restraint (no prior restraint), protected not to be compelled disclosure of information, have the right to access to government information and understanding of court proceedings, have the right to criticize the government officials and public figures, have the right to collect and publish the news value of the personal information, the government of journalists and news organizations license conditions there are limits to obscene remarks, to only limited and prudent limits.

No prior restraint

In eighteenth Century the British jurist William Blackstone (William Blackston) pointed out: "the basic nature of freedom of the press is a free country; but its meaning is not published in the implementation of prior restraint, but not published comments don't punish crime."

Blackstone pointed out that an important difference. The British government's power to license, and it can control who can manage the news media, can also control the published content of power, is to restrict freedom of expression of the classical approach. In remarks published by the government before they stop practice, stifle discussion and dissent.

However, in the eyes of Blackstone, all content publishers to self release should assume responsibility. Blackstone advocated a ban on government censorship, but he will still be allowed inPublishAfter the imposition of sanctions.

Almost no country like Blackstone argued the absolute prohibition on the press any prior restraint. We will explore some by many countries as a legitimate restriction. In the following situations may be regarded as a reasonable prior restraint:

• confirm that there is great need.

The scope of the relevant orders, are defined strictly specific, so as not to meet the great need beyond.

• command must be exact words, limited in duration as possible.

• should indicate the command does great need to help meet the proposed or helps to avoid known injuries.

• should have in the command is issued before the prior notice and listen to the voice of the opposition a chance.

What type can be a sufficient reason for pre control? They include:

• confidential or proprietary business information;

• highly personal information;

• copyright material;

• and ongoing criminal investigations or proceedings relating to the information;

• obscene or immoral material.

However, the most frequently cited reason may be that the national security. This point is that journalists face real difficulties. On the one hand, there is no information journalist wants to undermine national security by propagation does pose a threat. On the other hand, the government officials may have a review on national security grounds.

In 1971 the "New York Time Co v. United States" case (New York Times Co. v. United States) -- The Pentagon papers case (Pentagon Papers) -- in the Supreme Court, America trade-off is such a problem. In the "New York Times" began to publish confidential documents extract relevant USA involvement in Vietnam, Richard Nixon (Richard M. Nixon) president led government asked the court for an order to stop further discloses, these. But rejected the request of the government of the Supreme Court's decision. The Supreme Court says, "who made to the court pre control system are faced the constitutionality of strong opposite inference", and concluded, "the government has failed to demonstrate sufficient reason for implementing this constraint in this case".

People can not see the court's reasoning through this brief opinions, it is difficult to judge in the next case, what conditions -- if indeed the case -- may constitute a prior restraint according to the. we only know, failed to achieve the government in this case. The court did not say that it is not possible.

In practical terms, The Pentagon papers case to America government imposed censorship on national security grounds making an almost impassable barrier. Since then, the Supreme Court has never been open to the media to support the ability of national security information to make a prior restraint, even in the 9.11 events are not.

Territorial limitations of judicial make a government is difficult to truly effective worldwide restriction. At the end of 1980, the British government had tried in vain to restrict the publication of the five military intelligence (MI5) a former intelligence personnel memoir "catch agents" (Spycatcher). Although the England court did ban the publication of the book, but it is not in Australia, even in the jurisdiction of the court of England, the territory of Scotland wide release. So this book from these places and other jurisdictions was introduced in britain. Finally, the England court was forced to cancel the ban, the reason is, publication elsewhere mean that has no secret. In this controversy peak, "the economist" (The Economist) magazine in the UK edition published a page with the following note blank pages: "in all countries except a foreign, our readers can read this page on the former five military intelligence officer Peter Wright (Peter Wright)" to catch spies "in a book. The only exception is Britain, where the book reviews, and banned. For us there's 420000 readers, this page is blank -- the ban is silly."

"Catch spies who" case occurred in the development of the Internet before. Today, the vigorous new media for effective implementation of prior restraint caused great obstacles. WikiLeaks (Wikileaks) case is an example. In February 2008, a federal judge in California issued a permanent injunction to the wiki decryption. WikiLeaks is a known as "from the American, Taiwan, Europe, Australia and South Africa, including China dissident journalists, mathematicians and ...... The website "technical personnel, aggregate created, it describes his mission is to" expose the government and companies...... Immoral behavior". WikiLeaks allowed users to anonymously published the paper pieces, such as rules of engagement, America forces in the Gulf of Guantanamo (Guantanamo Bay) prison manuals, as well as the Swiss bank accounts of confidential information. It will not be responsible for the user posted on its Web site content.

The court injunction requiring declassification of domain name registration for wiki California company Dynadot immediately locking it domain, and shielding the online file. However, according to "New York Times" reports, the wiki decryption even in the Dynadot website set up after the limit, users around the world can still access in Belgium, Germany and Christmas Islands (Christmas Islands) registered mirror site, enter the site to read documents. In the first two weeks after a ban, the same judge -- Jeffrey White (Jeffrey White) -- the cancel. Judge White wrote: "clearly, in addition to the special circumstances, not a gag order on." He also said, his initial ban did not work, and "run counter to one's desire and intention", because the report on the media to judge the ban increased public attention on the WikiLeaks data.

Other types of gag orders, injunctions and restraining orders will be discussed in more detail in the appropriate sections below.

Free media: the government authorities and the newsroom searches

Free media: define the news occupation privilege

Journalists have to sources and unpublished information privacy rights to promote the free flow of information and the public's right to know the essential. The reporter to sources speak one's mind freely, we must ensure that their identity confidentiality. They must also be able to protect the fruits of their news gathering is not affected by the government or private entities under review, in order to maintain editorial independence. Without these privileges, it will seriously weaken the media supervision of the government and the ability to expose corruption.

Most of the media occupation ethics are asked to protect sources. For a reporter, this is the reputation, but also the actual need. Breach of confidentiality promised journalists, will not be affected by other sources of trust. Because of this, the reporter even facing charges of contempt, do not open their own sources.

The European Court of human rights in the "Godwin v. the United Kingdom" (Goodwin v. United Kingdom 1996) of a case, and laid a strong foundation for the reporter's privilege. The case involved a man named William Godwin (William Goodwin) reporter. Godwin has got a company's confidential financial information from a source to source, and agreed to secrecy. The company said this information was stolen, thus obtained a court injunction, may not be the open, but also by the court according to law "contempt of court" (Contempt of Court Act), forcing Godwin to "fair" to disclose his sources, for the company to take legal action.

The English court of appeal and the house of Lords to support the command decision, Godwin appeal to the European Court of human rights. He argued, "according to the European Convention on human rights" in tenth, only in special circumstances can force him to testify. The British government is put forward, the public interest reasons that privilege required the strong does not exist in this circumstance, especially considering that, from the most serious extent, sources provide proprietary commercial information to Godwin is irresponsible behavior.

The court ruled in favor of Godwin, that companies need to track sources is not enough to go beyond the protection of journalists for the protection of sources of the needs of public interests:

Protection of journalists sources is one of the basic conditions for the freedom of the press....... If there is no such protection, sources may not be public interest issues assist press provides information for the public. Thus, the media is very important public supervisor's role will be damaged, ability of media to provide accurate, reliable information can also be adversely affected. Taking into account the protection of journalists sources is important for the freedom of the press in democratic society, as well as deterrence ordered disclosure of sources caused by the exercise of this freedom may, unless there is an overriding public interest, such a move against the "Convention" article tenth of the regulations.

"All parties to the European Convention on human rights" are influenced by the Godwin verdict constraint; this ruling, even outside the European Union influence. Other international and regional organizations, including the Inter American Commission on human rights (Inter-American Commission on Human Rights) and Africa human rights and people's Rights Committee (African Commission on Human and People 's Rights), have issued a declaration, that journalists have the right to their sources and unpublished information.

In some countries, journalists' privilege was incorporated into the constitution. For example, Palau's constitution stipulates, "the government shall not require the journalism true disclosure made occupation survey information, nor for refusing to disclose the information and the implementation of imprisonment." The Swedish Constitution contains "the freedom of the Press Act" (Freedom of the Press Act), it provides news workers enjoy a wide range of privilege, only by a few exceptions such as restrictions, sources of information have spies or suspected or accused of treason, proves that the information sought is the criminal defense essential. The law also provides for the disclosure of information sources without consent of reporter sue.

In other countries, the court ruled that the journalist's privilege contained in the provisions of the constitution. For example, the Supreme Court ruled in 2006, article twenty-first of the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech is protected "collection smell" and reported the news freedom. In Canada, the Ontario court of Appeals in 2008 to overthrow a journalist refused to disclose a report leaked secret municipal people about non-profit sanatorium under the contempt of court judgment. The court ruled that, protection of confidential sources right is "Canadian Charter of rights and freedoms" (Charter of Rights and Freedoms) the basic part of that freedom of speech. The Court pointed out: "the disclosure of journalists confidential sources consequences is likely, to stop the other may be due to any reason to conceal the identity of the voluntary informant." Although the Canadian court declined to decide there is that all confidential communication made reports are protected in the process of the absolute privilege, but it admits, contempt charges should only be used as a last resort, may not neglect of other equally important rights of.

Some countries through the establishment of laws, the journalists have not to testify in the particular case of rights. About 20 of national legislation to allow reporters to enjoy the absolute right to protect their sources, including Mexico, Indonesia, Mozambique and Turkey. The more general approach is, national laws that recognize a qualified privilege, that in some cases this right can be undone. For example, Armenia let reporters enjoy privilege, but in the required information and major criminal cases directly related to information disclosure and public interests, and the maximum correlation, can undo this privilege. In some countries such as Germany and America, the legal protection of state decided to leave. Like the national laws, local laws can be absolute, can also be restricted.

In American, although the 39 states and the District of Columbia news Protection Act, but Congress has considered to federal legislation to reporters for the privilege, but by the end of 2010 summer has not been through. This means that the state news protection law applies to state judicial procedure, but does not apply to the federal court system.

Free media: the government information and right

America President Obama signed in January 21, 2009 five presidential decree, asked the staff to strictly abide by the "new rules" of the freedom of Information Act

Most of the freedom of information act around the world have common principles and characteristics. Many recent legislation from the American federal "freedom of Information Act" (Freedom of Information Act), so we take this as the example.

The America "freedom of Information Act" by Linden Johnson (Lyndon B. Johnson) president in July 4, 1966 signed into effect. "The freedom of Information Act" is so named, but it's actually not be establishedInformationRight, but the default rights of government in administrative agencies, departments, supervision committee and the government, whether printed or electronic control of archive information. These institutions including the State Council, the Ministry of national defense, the Ministry of justice and Federal Bureau of investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency. A different point and the Irish law is America, the "freedom of Information Act" does not expressly listed covered the organization name, also did not like the UK the intelligence and security agencies completely excluded. However, the legislative branch American "freedom of Information Act" does not apply to government, also do not apply to the Department of justice. Gets the provisions of state and local administrative institutions archives, depends on the state open government laws.

As with most countries, in America, anyone -- not necessarily America citizens or residents -- can be based on "freedom of Information Act" application requirements, but also, file information is for everyone and is not open to journalists. The law encourages applicants free access from the government in office or online reading room has been based on "electronic freedom of Information Act" (E-FOIA) in public or past through the other applicants request has been open file case information. Official responsible for the "freedom of Information Act" affairs, people also can be in contact with the relevant departments, to make a formal application, informal discussion can obtain what types of archive information. In USA, according to the "freedom of Information Act" without a special form -- apply only to the "freedom of Information Act" officials send a short letter, make a reasonable explanation to the seeking of archives information. Most institutions can accept the written or electronic form of the application at any time.

However, in the premise of archives opening, almost every part of the freedom of Information Act contains exceptions, i.e. institution may refuse to provide file types. There are nine exceptions America "freedom of Information Act" in accordance with the law, the terms and in accordance with the guidelines of the Justice Department, they should be as narrow definition:

• national security;

Internal rules / • agency practice;

• internal memo (such as decision-making mechanism in the working papers, reports and studies);

Commercial secret;

• by other federal statutes as secret archives;

Some law enforcement records;

America soldier Lang Ryde Noll (Ron Ridenhour) by collecting eyewitness accounts and USA Congress to write, play an important slaughter to expose the 1968 My Lai

• oil well data;

• the information contained herein is disclosed would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy archives.

The exceptions are not mandatory. If the agency finds that the disclosure of information brought by a public interest is greater than any possible damage, can be disclosed. They must be prepared to explain any exception, and had to keep in line with the exception of the content, and the remaining portion of the public. Do not reveal the necessity of a file will change over time. In relation to the secret files, the applicant may appeal to a special review committee, which will determine the confidential file past now whether can be openly. In some countries -- but not American -- the freedom of Information Act specifically prohibits certain types of information security.

Unlike many other countries, USA no secrets act, officially but, where by executive order of the president are properly classified files, can not open. In the 9.11 incident, many parts of the world to increase the information security measures. This brought new obstacles to finding and law enforcement record information of citizens. With the government to collect more personally identifiable information, agencies often as privacy exception declined to provide many government archives reason. These exceptions are sometimes vague and difficult to explain. The majority of Archivists in doubtful cases tend to not open.

Archives applicants rejected a right of appeal. According to the "freedom of Information Act", and also in most countries, the applicant required first internal review. This strategy can sometimes lead to open files, but not always. The next step is for external review. In American, this means that the lawsuits filed in federal district court, if necessary, to the federal court of appeals and even to the Supreme court. In other countries as well as some states America, the applicant may to a freedom of information Ombudsman, or to the tribunal or information independent of the appeal committee. Even in these places, may still require the state court to make a final review.

Successful applicants can not only obtain the information, and may receive fees. In some states, America and in many countries, the court may refuse to knowingly violate the law of government agencies and employees open archives sanctions. These sanctions including fines, in individual cases, if the violation is particularly bad, can even be sentenced.

Even in the legal requirements of open information, due to lack of resources or administrative backlog, low efficiency may lead to delay. Short term response should be made for the first time the most freedom of information laws, but to allow additional time to handle complex application. In American, according to research the open policy information folk organization national security archives organization (National Security Archive) report in 2007, at that time to be solved for the longest time "freedom of Information Act" for more than 20 years, but many other application has been given much more rapidly. In some cases, such as the reporter shows significant public interests based on the need of immediate open files, applications may be accelerated processing.

Even if the agency does not meet all the application requirements, but also may have the right to require the applicant to pay. In some countries (not including American), regardless of the size or scope of the request, all for the application fee. Some countries require payment of administrative expenses, including search, edit and copy the exception. According to the American "freedom of Information Act", some categories include the general public and the media, the applicant can obtain all or part of the free, but the business applicant (not including news media) to pay all the corresponding standards according to the agency's charge.

The freedom of Information Act established the premise of the public can have access to archived government. According to "get the freedom of Information Act" information to reporters to write tens of thousands of reports, some of which make USA embarrass the government: from expose 1968 years in Vietnam the My Lai Massacre (My Lai), to the food processing plants are not health; overload from defense contractors expense, to the most dangerous USA workplace. Even the UFO (UFO) feature report is also based on the "freedom of Information Act" the acquired information. As long as the persistent use of "freedom of Information Act" can do it all.

Journalists reported that government officials and public figures manner. However, a higher visibility, the greater the power, the more likely it against criticism. Many journalists would damage the reputation of others accused of eating in the occupation career.

Slander is generally published about another person's false, defamatory, could damage the reputation of speech to others. In most jurisdictions, defamation case belongs to the civil disputes, the appellant claim economic compensation.

Although the right of reputation may not belong to a basic right, but it is regarded as an important right, therefore, international conventions and treaties are not put defamatory allegations as contrary to the right of freedom of speech and the right to know. For example, "the International Covenant on Civil and political rights" (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) nineteenth on the following provisions:

"...... The exercise of the rights provided with specific obligation and responsibility, therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these restrictions provided by law and which are necessary for the following conditions: respectOthersRight orReputation...... [emphasis added]".

American Supreme Court "" New York Times "v. Sullivan" (New York Times v. Sullivan,1964), first introduced in the first amendment to the constitution is suitable for libel. The cause is, "New York Times" published in the column of paid news advertisement, the treatment of civil rights activists protesting the Alabama Montgomerie city law enforcement officers. Although no mention of advertising responsible for local police affairs of the Municipal Commissioner Sullivan (L.B. Sullivan) name, but Sullivan was indicted, the reason is, there lies the ad, hurt his reputation. He got $500000 in damages.

However, USA Supreme Court overturned the verdict. William Brennan (William Brennan) justice as the representative of the court majority opinion pointed out that, "the public debate should remain free, active and open the original", and confirmed for the first time, the first amendment must protect some not statements, in order to encourage the relevant important public affairs on the truth -- A speech the situation of seemingly contradictory. Accordingly, unless it can be proven that the existence of malicious -- Speech "knowingly untrue or wanton disregard for the truth and not" to be published, otherwise the government officials is unlikely to win in a libel case. In subsequent cases, the court will "do exist malicious" this test is also used for libel suits brought by public figures.

In ordinary citizens (non official or non public figure) case, the supreme court allowed states to establish the requisite standard. It is necessary for the government to admit, because of the false and harm their reputations for compensation by chance. But even in this case, the Supreme Court still requires the plaintiff to prove at least publishing is be forgetful of one's duties, and this standard can provide some room for journalists from unintentional mistakes.

Journalists enjoys a variety of occupation rights and protection measures against libel -- including non public figures -- the charges. Of course, the truth is the ultimate retort libel charges. Just right to press to reprint published reports of government documents without being held accountable, including contain defamatory allegations of court documents -- premise is reported accurately. In addition, as long as it is to clarify or protected based on the fact, journalists are entitled to fair comment, the sincerity of involved in matters of public concern characters criticism. The Supreme Court ruled that, according to the first amendment, pure point of view -- can neither be proven true nor false statements -- absolutely protected.

The laws of many countries -- such as Canada, Australia, Japan, Thailand , Brazil and Poland, have different regulations relating to the occupation rights and protection measures. Many countries make no distinction between public figures and ordinary citizens, but to the body for government officials, the plaintiff may impose stricter standards of proof. Some countries allow the company to put forward the libel suit, but in many countries the prosecution to constitute the harm to the company's trade or business reputation of speech. Many countries have abolished seditious libel, and no government entity suing for defamatory statements, but officials with the possible exception of.

In the present and prove the existence of libel factors, the general will seek monetary damages. Although in some cases can be preset reputation caused by the damage -- such as the error means someone to commit a crime, but in most cases, the plaintiff must prove that they have made remarks hurt. In many countries, allowing the plaintiff to recover damages to compensate for their actual costs, and reputation damage, suffered in the community or occupation on the decline, or personal humiliation. In addition, when the reporter manners is seen as a make one's hair stand on end, the court may decide to impose punitive damages, which the purpose is not to compensate the plaintiff loss, but to punish the press accused.

In some countries, media defendants may by demonstrating that they immediately released the complete correct and reasonable, the cancellation of the original false words of praise or blame, mitigate or reduce damage. In some countries, the defendant Corrections -- statement blamed for non intentional words -- will make a libel action failure, or become a justification for follow-up action in.

In addition to another approach of economic compensation outside the ban, ban on the alleged defamatory material. American and Canadian court has refused to ban as a remedy for libel, consider them to be incompatible with free expression principles. But the practice in many other countries are feasible. For example, the India court sometimes impose preliminary injunction in the material before the release, but the premise must be prosecuted, material was not real, and the plaintiff can prove that is likely to cause immediate harm to persons or property. In Italy, not only can use the prior restraint order, but also in Italy according to article 321st of the criminal law, the court also ordered the seizure of defamatory publications.

In many countries, the government prosecutor can bring a criminal libel suit. Many scholars believe that the criminal libel is out of date (its original purpose is to protect the monarch or noble without criticism or insult). Implement the criminal libel one of v. reason is, through legal channels, to avoid retaliation offensive to honour or dignity behavior causes possible duel or violence. Whether these threats may be today is not realistic, however, even some mature democracies -- including American -- still in the code retains the criminal libel terms, although they are rarely used.

In Germany, criminal defamation laws have been considered necessary rights and personal dignity protection law in the. The Portuguese forward, countries have the obligation to protect the person's reputation. Belgium article 443rd of the criminal law allows prosecution for libel, slander is defined as "malicious and publicly blamed a fact to someone, and legal evidence of that fact may not or does not set up, and is very likely to damage his reputation or made by the public."

However, the European Court of human rights has roots in European Convention tenth overturned the conviction of criminal defamation. For example, in the "forest gons v. Austria" (Lingens v. Austria) in the case, the court ruling, political figures "inevitably and know" will look at themselves in the press and the public, must be prepared to accept the harsh criticism. The Court pointed out, criminal libel industry has "a chilling effect on the news media, crime" to play the public supervision. Even so, criminal defamation laws also not considered by emerging democracies protect destructive criticism hurt is necessary. Azerbaijan and Maldives are the two countries which in the summer of 2009 to prosecute journalists slander.

Some countries with the standard more relaxed freedom of the press is not consistent. In some countries, journalists will false positive case with sb jailed. Many other countries in defiance of law, allow to insult or offend public officials or authorities for criminal prosecution of dignity, for journalists. For example, Turkey has 11 be arranged insult laws, including the protection of the Mustafa Kemal Atta Turck (Mustafa Kemal Ataturk) memorial. In Cameroon, the president, vice president or foreign heads of state expressed contempt, would be one to five years imprisonment and a fine (or). In Argentina, some "insult or damage the reputation of others" journalists may be subject to a fine or imprisonment. And even France in the code retains the act of July 29, 1881 (Law of July 29, 1881), so that the press can be punished for insulting the president, the Senate, foreign dignitaries and flag.

On the contrary, in American, the Supreme Court said, "there is no concept of false to say." In 1974, "an v. Robert Welch" (Gertz v. Robert Welch) in the case, justice Luis Powell pointed out: "no matter how bad a viewpoint, the correction is not dependent on the judge and jury of conscience, but other viewpoints and competition." In 1988, the Supreme Court refused to pastor Jerry Faure Weir on Larry Flint (Larry Flynt) of "hustler magazine put forward" action for mental suffering. The magazine had published an article "advertising Parody", depicting the clergyman purportedly telling and mother in both drunk in the situation of the outdoor toilet has his first sexual encounter. This paper contains a disclaimer, that it is purely fictitious, "should not seriously".

Faure Weir accused Flint of defamation, invasion of privacy, and deliberately cause mental suffering. Although Flint in the first two charges in the case, but the jury sentenced him to win in third. An appeals court upheld the ruling, but the Supreme Court unanimously reversed. The Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist (William Rehnquist) to USA deep intense and demanding political commentary on the grounds that the traditional, Falwell attempt to set a standard of "can lead to extreme shameless" compensation. He wrote: "in the political and social aspects, 'extreme shameless' with the inherent subjectivity of the jury, according to the jury taste or opinions, or...... They doesn't like a kind of expression to convicted of guilt." He pointed out that, if not published rhetoric contains actual malicious, public figures must tolerate this kind of attack, in order to America of First Amendment protection of freedom to the full "breathing space".

In the "hustler" magazine (Hustler) published an article in the television preacher Jerry Faure Weir (Jerry Falwell) of obscene irony ads, Falwell sued the libel. The Supreme Court ruled, Falwell as a public figure must tolerate attacks

In 1890, two Boston lawyer Luis Brandeis (Louis Brandeis) and Samuel Warren (Samuel Warren) in the "Harvard Law Review" (Harvard Law Review) published an article entitled "privacy" (The Right to Privacy) article. They wrote:

The press in all aspects are beyond the obvious bounds of propriety and decency. Tattle and prate is no longer boring and vicious resources, but also become a struggling and shameless pursuit. In order to meet her, lust, sex details are many daily newspaper special report. In order to let people have nothing to do to one's heart's content, newspaper columns and column is filled with only a home invasion privacy to get boring....... By the newspapers and accepted in the personal gossip and occupied for reports of genuine significance to community affairs forum, no wonder the ignorance and lack of minds on the relative importance of misunderstanding.

The two lawyers warn views eventually lead to USA established the common law that the right of privacy. 100 years later, their concerns seem to be very suitable.

The right of privacy is embodied in a series of international legal documents. "International Convention on Civil and political rights" seventeenth stipulates: "any person's private life, family, home or correspondence shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference"; "the European Convention on human rights" eighth the same security "everyone has the right to own private and family life, family and communication respected".

At the national level, the protection of privacy can be constitutional, statutory or common law. For example, the Brazil constitution of fifth states: "the private life of an individual is natural and inviolability." The criminal law for the protection of the right of privacy in Denmark, will enter a private, private files, obtained by mechanical device of private wiretapping, the pictures and the spying, will someone's personal information disclosed to others, or still infestation in warning after sb's seclusion set for crimes. Germany's basic law guarantee "the right of personality". The South African Constitution and common law protection of privacy.

However, the court has not admitted America privacy. Although the Supreme Court held that, the fourth amendment to the constitution to protect individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from government agents other illegal intrusion, but the amendment to the government, instead of the other person's behavior. In addition to electron capture a few federal regulations prohibit certain types of private communication, privacy laws America almost completely belongs to a 50 state law permission.

Free media: publish and privacy

Free media: understanding the right of court judgment

Free media: pre control and gag order

The camera into the court provides more information channels for the public, but in many countries, it continues to be a controversial issue. On 1995 the state of California famous Simpson (O.J. Simpson) the murder of the media reports, so far is still in the world influence judges and policymakers. They point out, this pile is perceived excesses of case proof, camera undermine the right to a fair trial -- though Simpson was acquitted. Worried about the camera, let the witnesses fear, chaos program allows lawyers to behave too -- these are required not to electronic media into the court of reason. Nevertheless, to appeal to the Supreme Court and many states American and some national courts continue to allow this using the camera -- but American Supreme Court has not yet allowed in court. In 2000, by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia) commissioned report concludes that use, in the court of the camera does not significantly affect the behavior of the participants, but help to provide complete and accurate court. The report further pointed out, the camera can inform the international community about the workings of the tribunal, the transparent and fair system of justice. The report suggests other international judicial procedure should be followed.