Free Expression

This is a very big topic in any media category, so it is no wonder it is a topic in ethics. First of all should the government be able to put limits on the media's right to free press and speech? As written in Controversies in Media Ethics the government can set regulations when "publications are obscene or directly incite violence, or they clearly threat national security." Do these circumstances validate government interaction? I think it can be necessary, but I also think it is up to the journalist. A journalist should have the ethics to not print or say something thing that would put the nation in danger or incite violence. Sometimes though it is hard to tell how people will react. 

Ethically speaking the real question is, is it right for the government to impose these regulations? Is this really what a democracy, like what we have in the United States is about? Journalists should understand that with great power comes great responsibility. And know that their articles or broadcasts will have an effect on people, and they should be prepared to deal with negative reactions, or know what not to talk about in order to avoid these riots. But this raises another point. The media has a responsibility to the citizens to be watch dogs and report on the bad things that happen to inform the uninformed. So they should report the things that will make some people angry. But I don't think it is up to the government to decide what will make people angry. 

There have been many court cases concerning the first amendment and the media and there has been a lot of different decisions, there are cases about libel and lots of other issues that I will not delve into yet. But the fact that reporters have to work so hard to keep their first amendment rights seems a little out of control.  

Here are some cases that have to do with the first amendment: http://www.anarchytv.com/speech/cases.htm