If one follows this lien of argument, what may happen is that the press’s freedom can be curbed by just passing new laws. This is possible in a country where the ruling party is very powerful and where the opposition parties are weak or not vociferous. It is possible for the government to decide what is good for the country and may even go as far as banning the paper. But then again, the people are supreme. They can always vote the government out if it practices anything unfair.
If governments are amenable and allow the press to be completely free, is it a desirable situation? In any society, where a freedom is given to any one people or a group of persons, it should not encroach on the freedom of another person or another group of persons. So when the press is given complete freedom, it is like giving it permission to write anything about any issue or on anyone. This will lead to a fear of the press. In fact, this is already happening in some societies. Newspapers have been known to destroy public figures by prying into their private lives and publishing new about them that are allegedly misleading. Much of the new is sensationalized and the purposes seem quite plain. Many newspapers will publish anything to sell copies. Certain newspaper reporters and editors will print anything as long as it furthers their careers. This does not make sense because the ordinary citizen is free from such harassment whereas the celebrity or the public figure is hounded. Quite often people are destroyed just on suspicion.
An example in point is the issue of singer Michael Jackson. To-date, the man has now been charged on several counts of the purported offence. Already the newspaper reports have destroyed him. It is believed that the press should have been fair to him and leave him to answer the charges, and then make their reports. However, what has happened is that the press has held in abeyance all the good that he has done and went about having a field day reporting all sorts of suspicions and interview with all sorts of people. This adverse publicity may prevent him form getting a fair trial. If the newspapers have the right to publish anything, what about the rights of the singer? If this type of situation is already happening at present, when the newspapers are only partially free, what more will happen if they are given complete freedom can well be imagined?
In conclusion, it is my view that the press can only be given freedom up to the point where it does not encroach on the freedom of others or the good of the state. No one, the press included should be given so much freedom that he takes it upon himself to cause damage to others. Perhaps in the future, when the press and individuals too, become absolutely responsible the situation could be reviewed. For now, we realize that the complete freedom is sure to be misused and should not be given.
