Free Speech or Something Like That

Ky. man, New Saxon, Free Speech, Obama
Although speech is freer in the United States than in many societies, federal and state laws do restrict many kinds of expression. Some kinds of speech regarded as damaging to individual interests (e.g., libel and slander) are limited primarily by the threat of tort action; other forms of speech (e.g., obscenity) are restricted by law because they are regarded as damaging to society as a whole. Speech that is regarded as disruptive of public order has long been beyond protection (e.g., fighting words that cause a breach of the peace or false statements that cause general panic). more

From US Code: Title 18,871 – Threats against the President and Successors to the Presidency:
(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in
the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter
carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document
containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict
bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-
elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of
succession to the office of President of the United States, or the
Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes
any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice
President or other officer next in the order of succession to the
office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under
this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
(b) The terms “President-elect” and “Vice President-elect” as
used in this section shall mean such persons as are the apparent
successful candidates for the offices of President and Vice
President, More

While freedom of the press remains strong in the U.S., where it is guaranteed in the Constitution, it is under fire in other parts of the world. In recent opinion columns, both the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times have sounded alarms over several fronts that threaten a free press globally.

Subjects of negative stories may forgo a lawsuit in the U.S., figuring American protections set the bar too high for plaintiffs, and instead file a lawsuit in Britain. In the U.S., the subject would have to prove that the book or article was false, defamatory and recklessly reported; under British law the burden of proof is on the author to prove that the reporting is true.

Result: Important stories may not get reported and written. Exhibit 1 is the work of Rachel Ehrenfeld, who wrote a book in 2003 alleging that a prominent Saudi businessman financed Islamic terrorism. The book was published in the United States and not widely available elsewhere,
This sort of “libel tourism” is a not just a threat to the livelihood of writers. It threatens important investigation that only a free press can do.
“The Web means publishing anywhere means publishing everywhere, thus subjecting authors and publishers to litigation in pro-plaintiff jurisdictions,” Crovitz wrote. “Exposes that meet U.S. standards for fairness and accuracy may not get published anywhere for fear of litigation.”  The Internet has the power and reach to expand freedom by making sure people around the world have information about what their country and other countries are doing. We should at least do our part in the U.S. by making sure that material published here is protected from lawsuits brought in overseas courts.More