Criminal Justice Opinion
Criminal Justice Opinion Portfolio
Privacy rights and Press Freedoms
In recent years the press has sensationalized topics of sex and violence that has spurred sales, yet lay waste to the public that it directly includes (Press Freedom, 2006). Advocates of the press declare and pronounce their first amendment rights when questioned about their tactics for sales and what is genuinely news; opposition would more directly see public domain be given the jurisdiction to press freedoms, rather than the private lives of individuals (Press Freedom, 2006). Yet the constitution does not give boundaries to the freedoms of speech; yet time and time again reporting interests of the media conflict with citizen’s private rights when libelous material is considered the preferred news. “Permissive libel laws have given the media a free ticket to print sensationalized and biased articles that can ruin people’s lives.” (Press Freedom, 2006, p.1) These practices are creating a drive for demands on media limits. Although these tactics are now used by all media outlets the news industry and the freedoms of speech are under a blanket partnership; if one is producing and publishing libel material, the consensus by the public might insinuate, they all are.
So that begs; are the media a real cause of added violence in crime or do they report simply what they see? Despite the few limitations to the press by governmental laws and regulations, the United States still can recognize the reality that it maintains a free press. With the freedoms allowed through the first amendment, the media is not limited to the accuracy of events but can have their own fiction or non-fictional version of events that generally can lead to additional crimes by a viewing public. These open gaps generally addressed by choice are the targets attacked by proponents of free speech, arguing a reduction in crime with added press control would improve crime statistics.
Criminal Justice Applications of the Media
I
Privacy rights and Press Freedoms
In recent years the press has sensationalized topics of sex and violence that has spurred sales, yet lay waste to the public that it directly includes (Press Freedom, 2006). Advocates of the press declare and pronounce their first amendment rights when questioned about their tactics for sales and what is genuinely news; opposition would more directly see public domain be given the jurisdiction to press freedoms, rather than the private lives of individuals (Press Freedom, 2006). Yet the constitution does not give boundaries to the freedoms of speech; yet time and time again reporting interests of the media conflict with citizen’s private rights when libelous material is considered the preferred news. “Permissive libel laws have given the media a free ticket to print sensationalized and biased articles that can ruin people’s lives.” (Press Freedom, 2006, p.1) These practices are creating a drive for demands on media limits. Although these tactics are now used by all media outlets the news industry and the freedoms of speech are under a blanket partnership; if one is producing and publishing libel material, the consensus by the public might insinuate, they all are.
So that begs; are the media a real cause of added violence in crime or do they report simply what they see? Despite the few limitations to the press by governmental laws and regulations, the United States still can recognize the reality that it maintains a free press. With the freedoms allowed through the first amendment, the media is not limited to the accuracy of events but can have their own fiction or non-fictional version of events that generally can lead to additional crimes by a viewing public. These open gaps generally addressed by choice are the targets attacked by proponents of free speech, arguing a reduction in crime with added press control would improve crime statistics.
Criminal Justice Applications of the Media
I
References: Death Penalty Information Center [NA] (2008) Legislative Activities- Ohio Retrieved February 1, 2008 from http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=2193 Fattah, G Neubauer, D. (2001) Debating Crime: Rhetoric and Reality. Belmont, California: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning Press Freedom 12, 2008, from Issues and Controversies @ Facts.com database. Schlosser, E. (2007) The Prison-Industrial Complex Retrieved February 11, 2008 from http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/199812/prisons/5 Sentementes, G United States Court of Appeals [NA] (2002) United States v. Salwan Yousif. Retrieved January 26, 2008 from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/8th/012288p.pdf Von Hirsch, A