Several times a year, in my role as president of the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council, I get to meet with small delegations of journalists from around the world brought in by the U.S. State Department’s guest visitor programs. Often joining me is Norman Stockwell, the publisher of The Progressive. We talk about government transparency (or the lack thereof) and the pressures and constraints faced by reporters and news outlets in our respective countries.
A recurring theme: The visitors, mostly from Asia, Latin America, and Europe, are often astonished by the extent to which the U.S. media and public are free to criticize people in power. Some countries tolerate satire; some don’t. “You cannot do that,” said a journalist from Central America at a recent session. “You cannot make fun of a politician.”
Back in colonial America, criticism of government officials was considered “seditious libel” under English common law, even if it was true. But in a 1735 libel case, New York publisher John Peter Zenger successfully argued that citizens have a “natural right” to make true statements about those in power. This principle was codified in laws across the land.
In a 1964 case known as New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the U.S. Supreme Court dramatically expanded the protection afforded journalists and others in regard to comments about public officials. It established that plaintiffs in libel cases must prove not only that their critics got something important wrong but also...
By Luminous Jannamike The Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) has warned Rev. Isaac Omolehin of Word Assembly Ministry to retract what it described as false and defamatory claims about the body...