International Encyclopedia of Communication Online

Extract

Virtually since the dawn of civilization and the establishment of authority-wielding institutions, what people can say and write has been challenged. There is a universal impulse to control expression, particularly statements or opinions contrary to the views, policies, or dogma of those in power (→  Censorship ). As is typical within repressive regimes, a justification for the suppression (though not expressed publicly) is the desire to preserve power. This desire to control information continued up to and through the era of the modern press. The phenomenon is not restricted to authoritarian nations in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Even liberal-minded countries, such as the United States, that provide for some kind of speech and/or press freedom have histories of not only struggling with the interpretation and implementation of freedom of expression, but also histories of speech and press suppression (→  Freedom of Communication ; Freedom of Information ). Any analysis of freedom of the press immediately begs several questions, among them: Freedom from what? Freedom to do what? These questions evoke the concepts of negative and positive freedom . Traditionally, freedom of the press is perceived negatively, as freedom from external restraint. But some perspectives, such as that articulated by Theodore Peterson (1956) , suggest this negative approach is inadequate. A positive ... log in or subscribe to read full text