The Intrinsic Difficulty of Restricting Press Freedom

Key Insight

An intermediate position between complete intellectual independence and total servitude for the press is largely unattainable. Attempts to curb press 'license' are consistently either insufficient or counterproductive. For instance, subjecting writers to trial by jury frequently results in acquittals, transforming an individual's opinion into a national sentiment. Shifting to permanent magistrates is similarly ineffective, as authors can proclaim with impunity in their defense pleas what they might fear to write in a book, allowing the 'soul' of thought to elude legal arrest.

Further efforts, such as employing censors, fail because political platforms remain free, rendering censorship largely moot and potentially worsening the situation. The power of thought differs from physical force; it does not necessarily increase with the number of agents. A single forceful speaker can exert more influence than a thousand confused orators, and freedom of speech in one public place effectively amplifies a message everywhere. To truly suppress the press, one must also suppress speech, leading to an extreme state of silence under a despot's rule, a destination far removed from merely addressing the 'abuse of freedom'.

Beyond these general challenges, specific national contexts provide additional reasons to cherish press freedom. In countries where government agents violate laws with impunity and citizens lack legal recourse, the independence of the press becomes the sole guarantee of freedom and security. In such scenarios, if leaders propose restrictions, the populace might demand the right to prosecute governmental crimes before ordinary judges as a prerequisite. Moreover, in nations upholding popular sovereignty, censorship is deemed 'monstrously absurd,' as the right of individuals to govern society inherently presumes their ability to weigh diverse opinions and facts. Popular sovereignty and a free press are inherently consistent, whereas censorship and universal suffrage are contradictory and unsustainable together; indeed, among the 12000000 people in the United States, not one has proposed restricting press freedom.