Hospitals & Asylums
Freedom of the Press
By Tony Sanders
Art. 1 Prior Restraint by Cato
In the earliest of times literacy was a highly restricted and relatively un-prestigious craft, with little of the association of wealth, power, status, and knowledge it was later to acquire. Literacy was a tool primarily for serving the needs of state, bureaucracy, church and trade. As reading and writing began to spread among the population, mostly the free males, writing began to set down the results of speech. Libraries were constructed and the clever reader would copy a text and sell it to another library. The spread of literacy and the development of universities meant that by the 15th century, despite an assembly line approach to the production of books, supply was no longer able to meet demand. In 1440, German inventor Johannes Gutenberg invented a printing press process that, with refinements and increased mechanization, remained the principal means of printing until the late 20th century. The use of movable type in printing was invented in 1041 AD by Bi Sheng in China. Since there are thousands of Chinese characters, the benefit of the technique is not as obvious as in European languages. Although Laurence Koster of Haarlem, Netherlands also laid claim to the invention, scholars have generally accepted Gutenberg as the father of modern printing. By 1499 print-houses had become established in more than 2500 cities in Europe. Fifteen million books had been flung into a world where scholars would travel miles to visit a library stocked with twenty hand-written volumes.
Ca. 3100 BC Invention of Writing in Babylon
3100-3500 BC Development of Writing Systems
650-550 BC Invention of the Greek Alphabet
500-400 BC First Schools Develop
200 BC – 200 AD Roman Public Schools
1041 AD Movable Type Printing Invented in China
0-1200 AD Origins and Spread of Christianity
1200s Commercial, Urban Revolutions Expand Use of Literacy
1300s Rediscovery of Classical Legacies
1450s Advent of the Printing Press
1500s Reformation and Spread of Printing
1700s Enlightenment and Liberal Legacy
1800s School Development and Literacy Tests
1900s Non-print Electronic Media (Graff 86:73)
World illiteracy halved between 1970 and 2005.
As more and more people were able to read and write the State attempted to control the publishing industry. The art of printing soon after its introduction, unless previously approved by proper well in England as in other countries, was merely a matter of state, and subject to the coercion of the crown. It was, therefore, regulated in England by the king's proclamations, prohibitions, charters of privilege, and licenses, and finally by the decrees of the Court of Star-Chamber, which limited the number of printers and of presses which each should employ, and prohibited new publications, unless previously approved by proper licensers. On the demolition of this odious jurisdiction, in 1641, the Long Parliament of Charles the First, after their rupture with that prince, assumed the same powers which the Star-Chamber exercised with respect to licensing books; and during the Commonwealth (such is human frailty and the love of power even in republics!) they issued their ordinances for that purpose, founded principally upon a Star-Chamber decree of 1937. After the restoration of Charles the Second, a statute on the same subject was passed, copied, with some few alterations, from the parliamentary ordinances. The act expired in 1679, and was revived and continued for a few years after the revolution of 1688. Many attempts were made by the government to keep it in force; but it was so strongly resisted by Parliament that it expired in 1694, and has never since been revived.
To stay out of trouble writers in seventeenth century England were wise to follow the rules. Before anything could officially be published, a government censor needed to review the material and decide whether or not to grant it a license. In legal terms this is known as prior restraint. Despite the threat of punishment, authors did still publish their works unofficially. However, any unlicensed political writer was vulnerable to being charged not just with publishing without a license, but also with engaging in seditious libel. Technically, this term referred to the use of false and malicious statements, libel, in order to incite treason against the government, sedition. In practice, seditious libel referred to any comment that could be interpreted as critical or unsupportive of the government. Spinoza, a Jewish philosopher whose parents had fled Portugal in order to escape the Spanish Inquisition, thought any wise ruler should allow freedom of speech so people could live together in harmony, no matter how different their opinions might be. John Milton, was born in 1608, educated as a child, a prolific Puritan pamphleteer his entire life, during the revolution against Charles I who was executed in 1649, protesting the Licensing Act of 1643, in which Parliament attempted to replace the king as censor of all printed works in the kingdom and requiring all printers to obtain specific license for any new works they printed, demanded in an off quoted passage from his influential 1644 essay, Areopagitica, that he be given the “liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties” he does concede, “that no book be printed, unless the printer’s and the author’s name, or at least the printer’s be registered” (Milton 1644; Epps et al 08:29-39).
Published anonymously by Englishmen John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon from 1720 to 1723, the letters, all 144 of them, published under the pen name Cato, provided a radical and well-developed theory of freedom of speech. Cato was a reference to the later years of the Roman Republic, when a man named the Great Cato, a staunch opponent of Julius Caesar, chose to commit suicide rather than accept Caesar’s rule. Only four of their musings dealt with issues of free expression, the most revolutionary was their fifteenth, “Of Freedom of Speech” that stated, “Freedom of speech is the great bulwark of liberty, they prosper and die together….Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as public Liberty, without freedom of speech; which is the right of every man, as far as by it he does not hurt and control the right of another; and this is the only check which it ought to suffer, the only bounds which it ought to know”. In their 101st letter, the authors believed that the best way to treat undeserved libels is to laugh at them, and despise them, not to prosecute them” (Haynes et al 06:30).
A free press is one of the bulwarks of American democracy. The US Constitution defines the three branches of government – legislative, executive and judicial-and establishes the system of checks and balances to guarantee that one branch never can usurp power over the others. A free press, by monitoring the government and informing the public of its actions, essentially functions as the fourth branch of government, and is often referred to as the Fourth Estate. In general, the Court’s rulings have supported the right of the press. In Near v. Minnesota 1931 the Court, in a five to four decision, determined that a state court cannot halt publication of a periodical based on the content of the articles it prints. In New York Times v. Sullivan 1964, widely regarded as the single most important free press decision ever, the Court unanimously decreed, that a journalist cannot be found guilty of libel for criticizing government officials unless the officials prove that the statements the journalist made about them were purposefully malicious any rule requiring a guarantee of truth on all factual assertions would “dampen the vigor and limit the variety of public debate”. In the New York Times Company v. United States 1971 more commonly known as the Pentagon Papers case, the Court ruled six to three that journalists may freely uncover and report facts about government impropriety (Edelman 06:12; Epps 08:121; ).
The First Amendment, said Judge Learned hand, “presupposes that right conclusions are more likely to be gathered out of a multitude of tongues, than through any kind of authoritive selection”. The general proposition that freedom of expression upon public questions is secured by the First Amendment has long been settled. The constitutional safeguard was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people. The maintenance of the opportunity for free political discussion to the end that government may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes may be obtained by lawful means, is an opportunity essential to the security of the Republic, is a fundamental principle of our constitutional system. In Cantwell v. Connecticut 1940 the Court declared: In the ream of religious faith, and that of political belief, sharp differences arise. In both fields, the tenets of one man may seem the rankest error to his neighbor. To persuade others to his own point of view, the pleader, as we know, at times resorts to exaggeration, to vilification of men who have been, or are, prominent in church or state, and even to false statement, But the people of this nation have ordained, in the light of history, that, in spite of the probability of excesses and abuses, these liberties are, in the long view, essential to enlightened opinion and right conduct on the part of the citizens of a democracy (Edelmen 06: 63). In Stromberg v. California the Court held “It is a prized American privilege to speak one’s mind”. In NAACP v. Button the Court held that erroneous statement is inevitable in free debate, and that it must be protected if the freedoms of expression are to have the “breathing space” that they “need…to survive” (Epps 08:127).
In determining the extent of the constitutional protection of the liberty of the press, it has been generally, if not universally, considered that it is the chief purpose of the guaranty to prevent previous restraints upon publication. The struggle in England, directed against the legislative power of the licenser, resulted in renunciation of the censorship of the press. The liberty deemed to be established was thus described by Blackstone: 'The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state; but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when published. The classic formulation of the principle by those who won our independence believed …that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hoped and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones. Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law-the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed United States v. Associated Press.
Blackstone taught that under the common law liberty of the press means simply the absence of restraint upon publication in advance as distinguished from liability, civil or criminal, for libelous or improper matter so published. And, as above shown, Story defined freedom of the press guaranteed by the First Amendment to mean that 'every man shall be at liberty to publish what is true, with good motives and for justifiable ends. Premised on mistrust of governmental power, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints. Prohibited, too, are restrictions distinguishing among different speakers, allowing speech by some but not others. By taking the right to speak from some and giving it to others, the Government deprives the disadvantaged person or class of the right to use speech to strive to establish worth, standing, and respect for the speaker's voice. The Government may not by these means deprive the public of the right and privilege to determine for itself what speech and speakers are worthy of consideration. The First Amendment protects speech and speaker, and the ideas that flow from each.
Benjamin Franklin was born in Boston in 1706. At the age of fifteen, he became apprentice printer to his brother James’s paper, the New England Courant, Prohibited by his brother from writing for the Courant, Franklin submitted articles signed “Mrs. Silence Dogood.” Eventually Mrs. Dogood’s identity was revealed, and James’s displeasure created a rift in their relationship. Before long, Franklin ran away from home and became an apprentice printer in Philadelphia. It was not until 1729, when he and a friend purchased the Pennsylvania Gazette, that Benjamin Franklin achieved his dream of becoming a printer. Though he became internationally known for his scientific discoveries, and served as American minister to France and later as a member of the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, he never lost sight of his origins in the composing room and sometimes signed his letters, “B, Franklin, printer.” (Epps 08:127) Before he died in 1790 Franklin wrote to his critics “An Apology for the Printers” in 1731 that the peculiar unhappiness of the business was suffering the least Censure or Ill will. Being frequently censured and condemned by different Persons for printing things which they say ought not to be printed, he wrote, “I have sometimes thought it might be necessary to make a standing Apology for my self (most famed for the invention of the Franklin stove). I request all who are angry with me on the Account of printing things they don’t like, calmly to consider these following Particulars”.
1. That the Opinion of Men are almost as various as their Faces; an Observation general enough to become a common proverb, So many Men so many Minds.
2. That the Business of Printing has chiefly to do with Men’s opinions; most things that are printed tending to promote some, or oppose others.
3. That hence arises the peculiar Unhappiness of that Business, which other Callings are no way liable to; they who follow Printing being scarce able to do anything in their way of getting a Living, which shall not probably give Offence to some, and perhaps to many; whereas the Smith, the Shoemaker, the Carpenter, or the Man of any other Trade, may work indifferently for People of all Persuasions, without offending any of them: and the Merchant may buy and sell with Jews, Tuks, Hereticks and Infidels of all sorts, and get Money by every one of them, without giving Offence to the most orthodox, of any sort; or suffering the least Censure or Ill will on the Account from any Man whatever.
4. That is as unreasonable in any one Man or Set of Men to expect to be pleased with every thing that is printed, as to think that nobody ought to be pleased but themselves.
5. Printers are educated in the Belief, that when Men differ in Opinion, both Sides ought equally to have the Advantage of being heard by the Public: and that when Truth and Error have fair Play, the former is always an overmatch for the latter: Hence they cheerfully serve all contending Writers that pay them well, without regarding on which side they are of the Question in Dispute.
6. Being thus continually employed in serving both Parties, Printers naturally acquire a vast Unconcernedness as to the right or wrong Opinions contained in what they print; regarding it only as the Matter of their daily labor. They print things full of Spleen and Animosity, with the utmost Calmness and Indifference, and without the least Ill-will to the Persons reflected on; who nevertheless unjustly think the Printer as much their Enemy as the Author, and join both together in their Resentment.
7. That it is unreasonable to imagine Printers approve of every thing they print, and to censure them on any particular thing accordingly; since in the way of their Business they print such great variety of things opposite and contradictory. It is likewise as unreasonable what some assert, “That Printers ought not to print any thing but what they approve;” since if all of that Business should make such a Resolution, and abide by, an End would thereby be put to Free Writing, and the World would afterwards have nothing to read but what happened to the Opinion of the Printers.
8. That if all Printers were determined not to print anything till they were sure it would offend nobody, there would be very little printed.
9. That if they sometimes print vicious or silly things not worth reading it may not be because they approve such things themselves, but because the People are so viciously and corruptly educated that good things are not encouraged. I have known a very numerous Impression of Robin Hood Songs go off in this Province at 2s. per Book, in less than a Twelve-month when a small Quantity of David’s Psalms (an excellent Version_ have upon my Hand above twice the Time.
10. That notwithstanding what might urged in behalf of a Man’s being allowed to do in the Way of his Business whatever he is paid for, yet Printers do continually discourage the Printing of great Numbers of bad things, and stifle them in the Birth. I my self have constantly refused to print anything that might countenance Vice, or promote Immorality,; tho’ by complying in such Cases with the corrupt Taste of the Majority I might have got much Money. I have also always refused to print such things as might do real Injury to any Peron, how much soever I have been solicited, and tempted with Offers of Great Pay; and how much so-ever I have by refusing got the ill-will of those who would have employed me. I have hitherto fallen under the Resentment of large Bodies of Men, for refusing absolutely to print any of their Party or Personal Reflections. In this Manner I have made my self many Enemies and the constant Fatigue of denying is almost insupportable. But the Public being unacquainted with all this, whenever the poor Printer happens either through Ignorance or much Persuasion, to do any thing that is generally thought worthy of Blame, he meets with no more Friendship or Favor on the above Account, that if there were no Merit in it at all (Franklin 1731; Epps 08:127).
Poets lost half the Praise they would have got
Were it but known what they discretely blot
The American Colonists were not willing to take the risk that men who injure and oppress the people under their administration and provoke them to cry out and complain will also be empowered to make that very complaint the foundation for new oppressions and prosecutions. When Virginia’s colonial representatives gathered in Williamsburg in May 1776, they were ready to declare independence from Great Britain. The city of Norfolk, Virginia, had been leveled by British artillery, and more military action against the colony appeared inevitable. George Mason, having been appointed to a committee to draft a declaration of rights and constitution took it upon himself to produce sixteen articles proclaiming the fundamental rights of the people. After only a few amendments, the Virginia Declaration of rights passed unanimously in the Virginia Assembly on June 12, 1776. Section 15 states, That no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved t any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles and Section 12, That the freedom of the press is one of the great bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by despotic governments (Mason 1776; Hayne 06:38)
James Madison, the Architect of the First Amendment said, “If we advert to the nature of Republican Government, we shall find that the censorial power is in the people over the Government, and not in the Government over the people”. The right of free public discussion of the stewardship of public officials was thus, in Madison’s view, a fundamental principle of the American form of government. As Madison said, “Some degree of abuse is inseparable from the proper use of every thing and in no instance is this more true than in that of the press” (Epps 08:129). Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall added, “Our whole constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men’s minds”. The starting point is for Americans to understand the history and significance of First Amendment rights and then commit to the ongoing task of upholding these rights not just for one’s self, but for all people (Haynes 06:10-12).
The year the Constitution, was ratified, in 1787, Thomas Jefferson wrote to his friend James Madison, “A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth…and what no just government should refuse”. Madison wrote Jefferson in 1788, “By omitting a list of rights, the new Constitution denied the new government any power to violate rights”. However during the first federal elections held in 1788-1789, Madison realized he must run for office promising a bill of rights. He did it too. On August 24, 1789 the House of Representatives approved seventeen of Madison’s amendments and sent the resolution to the Senate on August 25, on September 25 President George Washington sent twelve amendments to the states for ratification. The text of the First Amendment is derived from three of Madison’s proposals,
The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext infringed.
The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.
The people shall not be restrained from peaceably assembling and consulting for their common good; nor from applying to the Legislature by petitions, or remonstrance for redress of their grievances.
By the time the First Amendment officially became part of the Constitution on December 15, 1791 it stated,
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The 66 day Utah Constitutional Convention of March 4, 1895 through May 6, 1895 was not negligent and Article I, Section 1 of the Utah Constitution guarantees the people the “Inherent and inalienable rights” that, “All men have the inherent and inalienable right to enjoy and defend their lives and liberties; to acquire, possess and protect property; to worship according to the dictates of their consciences; to assemble peaceably, protest against wrongs, and petition for redress of grievances; to communicate freely their thoughts and opinions, being responsible for the abuse of that right.”
Madison prepared a Report, his premise was that the Constitution created a form of government under which "The people, not the government, possess the absolute sovereignty." The structure of the government dispersed power in reflection of the people's distrust of concentrated power, and of power itself at all levels. This form of government was "altogether different" from the British form, under which the Crown was sovereign and the people were subjects. "Is not natural and necessary, under such different circumstances," he asked, "that a different degree of freedom in the use of the press should be contemplated?" Earlier, in a debate in the House of Representatives, Madison had said: "If we advert to the nature of Republican Government, we shall find that the censorial power is in the people over the Government, and not in the Government over the people." Of the exercise of that power by the press, his Report said: "In every state, probably, in the Union, the press has exerted a freedom in canvassing the merits and measures of public men, of every description, which has not been confined to the strict limits of the common law. On this footing the freedom of the press has stood; on this foundation it yet stands . . . ." The right of free public discussion of the stewardship of public officials was thus, in Madison's view, a fundamental principle of the American form of government.
In 1797 a treaty with the British had angered Napoleon. President John Adams sent a delegation but French emissaries, named XYZ, demanded both a bribe and a loan. Adams decided to publish the correspondence and the public was outraged. The Federalists then defeated their Democratic Republican opponents at every turn and intent on using the XYZ affair to silence the opposition once and for all the Federalists decided to crack down on immigrant voting rights and in the crisis of 1798, the Federalist Party used its dominance to pass the Sedition Act y the spring of 1800, with Election Day in sight, Secretary of State Pickering had already either prosecuted or singled out many of the President’s chief detractors for sedition charges (Haynes et al. 06:52; Epps 08:76; Madison 1799). In the celebrated trial of publisher, some years earlier John Peter Zenger, represented by his lawyer, the flamboyant Philadelphian Andrew Hamilton, daringly instructed the jury to disregards the law, suggesting that the question before the court is not the cause of a poor printer, nor of New York alone. No. It is the cause of liberty. Every man who prefers Freedom to a life of slavery will bless and honor you, as men who have given us a right both of exposing and opposing arbitrary power by speaking and writing the truth”. If a defendant accused of libel could prove that what he said was true, he should be acquitted. The truth should be admitted as a defense against a criminal libel trial (Haynes 06:31). However, if found guilty the libeler would face a fine of up to $5,000 and up to 5 years in prison "if any person shall write, print, utter or publish . . . any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress. . ., or the President . . ., with intent to defame . . . or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States”.
In response, prominent Republicans, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, decided to try and arouse opposition to the new laws in the state legislatures. Acting in secret, Jefferson drafted a resolution that the Kentucky legislature approved in November 1798. The Sedition Act, he wrote, was a violation of the government’s pledge not to infringe on state’s rights, “Whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritive and does abridge the freedom of the press, is not law, is altogether void, and of no force.” The Virginia Senate agreed to the language of Madison’s resolution, which accused the new laws of exercising a, “power not delegated by the constitution, but on the contrary, expressly and positively forbidden by one of the amendments thereto; a power, which more than any other, ought to produce universal alarm, because it is leveled against that right of freely examining public characters and measures, and of free communication among the people thereon, which has ever been justly deemed, the only effectual guardian of every other right.” Despite their efforts, Jefferson’s and Madison’s state resolutions in Kentucky and Virginia were not adopted elsewhere (Haynes et al 06:52). In the famous Virginia Resolutions of 1798, the General Assembly of Virginia resolved that it "doth particularly protest against the palpable and alarming infractions of the Constitution, in the two late cases of the `Alien and Sedition Acts,' passed at the last session of Congress . . . . [The Sedition Act] exercises . . . a power not delegated by the Constitution, but, on the contrary, expressly and positively forbidden by one of the amendments thereto - a power which, more than any other, ought to produce universal alarm, because it is levelled against the right of freely examining public characters and measures, and of free communication among the people thereon, which has ever been justly deemed the only effectual guardian of every other right."
One of Pickering’s targets was an English born newspaperman named Thomas Cooper, the editor of a Republican-leaning Pennsylvania newspaper. In a June 1799 Address to the Readers of the Sunbury and Northumberland Gazzette, Cooper criticized the Sedition Act by suggesting Americans resist “in the only justifiable way of opposition under a free government, by discussion in the first instance, and a change of persons by constitutional election if no other method will succeed”. President James Adams was livid. Certain that such talk was a libel against the whole government, he ordered that Cooper be arrested in April 1800. As a final election-year flourish, Pickering decided to have him tried in the nation’s capital during the Presidential campaign. The case received national attention, and Cooper, defending himself, capitalized on the opportunity, attacking both the law and the Adams administration. In the end, his defense became more than a defense before the jury; it was also an appeal to the American people about whom they should choose to be their next President. Although Cooper was ultimately found guilty as charged and sentenced to serve six months in prison, the damage to the Federalists credibility had been done. Gradually, more and more public officials realized it was political suicide to express enthusiasm for the law. In May 1800, Pickering was dismissed from the cabinet and later that year, Thomas Jefferson was elected the third President of the Untied States. One of Jefferson’s first acts in office was to pardon all persons who had been convicted of sedition and Congress allowed the law to expire in 1801 (Haynes et al 06:53). Fines levied in its prosecution were repaid by Act of Congress on the ground that it was unconstitutional.
The Latin word plagarias was first used in its modern sense by Roman poet Martial in the first century AD. A plagarius was someone who stole another’s slave or enslaved a free person. Scholars are self-selected into an activity that requires them to write, they are not indifferent students with writer’s block. Student plagiarism may be becoming less and less common as more and more colleges and universities adopt plagiarism detection software, such as Turnitin, a product of a company called iParadigms. Thousands of colleges in the United States and abroad have acquired licenses, at an annual cost of about 80 cents per student, to use the program. The program digitizes the student’s paper, uploads it into the Turnitin database, and searches the Database for matches. The Turnitin database is actually a collection of databases. One, the equivalent of Google’s database, is a complete and continuously updated copy of the World Wide Web. Others contain archived materials from the Web, contents from other publicly available databases and all the papers that have been submitted to Turnitin (Posner 07:82).
We judge less harshly those malefactors who are most like us. One reason for the ambivalence of reactions against plagiarism is that the Left, which dominates intellectual circles in the United States, is soft on plagiarism. Plagiarism is a species of intellectual fraud. It consists of unauthorized copying that the copier claims (whether explicitly or implicitly and whether deliberately or carelessly) is original with him and the claim causes the copier’s audience to behave otherwise than it would if it knew the truth. This change in behavior, as when it takes the form of readers’ buying the copier’s book under the misapprehension that it is original, can harm both the person who is copied and the competitors of the copier. But there can be plagiarism without publication, as in the case of student plagiarism. Plagiarism is considered by most writers, teachers, journalists, scholars and even members of the general public to be the capital intellectual crime. In James Hunes’s satirical novella of plagiarism, Casting the Runes, the plagiarist, having by black magic murdered one of the historians whom he plagiarized and tried to murder second, is himself killed by the same black magic, deployed by the widow of his murder victims. Being caught out in plagiarism can blast a politician’s career, earn a college student expulsion, and destroy a writer’s, scholar’s or journalist’s reputation (Posner 08:90).
The primary practitioners of plagiarism are however strangely bar certified attorneys. Strangely because it is so logical that someone with a credible written opinion, but abused by or excluded from the academic or professional circles to which it pertains, would appeal to a lawyer or a Court for the purchase of the rights to their stolen copyright. Before being discovered that Rule 1 Governing all State Bar Associations conflicted with the First Amendment freedoms of speech, association and the press, critically when it infringes on the right to sue the executive and legislative branches of the government, misinterpreted the unauthorized practice of law so that, “No Member shall do business with non-members” weighing very heavily on the all important legal player, “the Author”, leaving lawyers free to hire hitmen and conspire to defraud the records of wealthy illiterates so foolish as to consort with a bar certified attorney “not behind bars but drunk on power” although the international meaning of the legal term, unauthorized practice of law, ultra vires, is, “without statutory authority” that can be adapted to “without permission of the author”. Properly interpreted the term plagiarism is nearly synonymous in its proper use with the term ultra vires because these words bring to mind the threat of death or disability by disease as the result of becoming famous without the financial security due the author thereby becoming easy prey to the invasion of and defamation of a family that might poison and torture for economic inequality. Real plagiarists are generally not caught in the act because they did not only secretly steal the intellectual property of some rube but seized enough political and judicial power for a totalitarian conspiracy to defame and torture the Author, while enjoying the monetary and political blessing due the Author and the public never gets to know who this Jesus Christ is and what else he or she has to teach, because they are either dead or in hiding. Professional practice of Authors and Lawyers therefore requires that their sources be credited because the wisdom of States does not grow on trees but in the minds of Authors who are entitled to benefit from the proceeds of their work, so the truth prevails and wisdom flourishes.
Although the California State Bar Association has amended their Rules to discontinue the enforcement of an unjust conformity with the State Supreme Court, good standing with the State Bar is a pre-requisite for federal legal practice. The primary dissenter to the freedoms of the people of this day, the Illinois State Bar Association, who seized the White House with their peon and his sexist racial discriminator, however does not disclose their rules on the Internet, presuming a continuing reliance upon the V Amendment protection against self-incrimination for the violent overthrow of the federal government by a lawyer ultra vires the judiciary, setting up an invasive estate law firm where there once stood a proud people of consenting states. Although the “censorship” option for the so called unauthorized practice of law, non payment of dues, is popular in Illinois and might be the most accurate identifier of his concealed, ill annoyed torture victim(s), before and after the $1 Trillion International Decade stolen by ONE Chicago Bank HA-26-1-04. The complete “disbarment” of all bar certified lawyers running for office when elected to executive or legislative office or gainfully employed in commercial practice is the poetic justice for settling all the false imprisonments, disputes and rights wronged in their professional practice, before raising the prevailing judicial corruption, propping up the Bar, against the general public. An executive or legislative officer should not have any continuing professional membership obligations to the judicial branch, whereas it is in fact the prisoner who needs to be disbarred and the pretty words of the lawyer, so calming to the Court, that never disbursed any malpractice insurance to Authors, only to their torturers, were, in most cases, but a lie to evade the self-discipline of the executive and legislative copyright royalties in a defunct one party democracy. The dismissal of bar certified attorneys from the theological hell of the penal justice system, as opposed to health, should be as swift as it is just - the separation of powers.
“Everyone has the rights to the freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through and media and regardless of frontiers" according to Art. 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 19, an NGO campaigning for the right to freedom of expression, has been instrumental in coordinating the activities of international and regional mechanisms. It has convened meetings to bring together the UN Special Rapporteur, the OAS Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media. These three institutions have made a number of joint declarations on the issue of freedom of expression. The Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information of November 1996 were adopted by a group of experts in international law and endorsed by the UN Special Rapporteur in his annual report of 1996.
Freedom of expression is a cornerstone of democratic rights and freedoms. In its very first session in 1946, before any human rights declarations or treaties had been adopted, the UN General Assembly adopted resolution 59(I) stating "Freedom of information is a fundamental human right and ... the touchstone of all the freedoms to which the United Nations is consecrated." Freedom of expression is essential in enabling democracy to work and public participation in decision-making. Citizens cannot exercise their right to vote effectively or take part in public decision-making if they do not have free access to information and ideas and are not able to express their views freely. Political parties are manifestations of the freedom of expression, to State, denied to ordinary citizens with the right answer by means of democratically elected or appointed government officials. Political parties can empower people with divergent viewpoints to express their opinions to the public but more often create party lines that inhibit politicians from freely expressing their opinions and repress people with opposing viewpoints. The United States has been seized by a psychologically bi-polar effective one party since right before the Civil War when the Democratic and Republican (DR) fused at the height of toxic class interest, forever thereafter tyrannizing the plurality of political expression needed to determine what is right. Freedom of expression is thus not only important for individual dignity but also to participation, accountability and democracy. Violations of freedom of expression often go hand in hand with other violations, in particular the right to freedom of association and assembly. The right to freedom of expression upholds the rights of all to express their views and opinions freely.
The freedom to impart information can come under attack in a variety of ways and particularly impinge on the freedom of the press. Pressure on journalists poses a very significant threat. Informal censorship refers to a variety of activities by public officials - ranging from telephone calls and threats to physical attacks - designed to prevent or punish the publication of critical material. The right of journalists to protect their sources is also important in ensuring the free flow of information on matters of public interest. International and regional human rights mechanisms have asserted that journalists should never be required to reveal their sources except under certain conditions (it is necessary for a criminal investigation or the defense of a person accused of a criminal offence; they are ordered to do so by a court, after a full opportunity to present their case; necessary’ implies that the information cannot be obtained elsewhere, that it is of great importance and that the public interest in disclosure significantly outweighs the harm to freedom of expression from disclosure). Restrictions should only be imposed where there is a real risk of harm to a legitimate interest meaning there is a significant risk of imminent harm; the risk is of serious harm, that is to say violence or other unlawful action; there is a close causal link between the risk of harm and the expression; the expression was made with the intention of causing the harm.
All bodies with regulatory authority over the media, print or broadcast, should be fully independent of government. Media monopolies are another way in which the right to receive information from a variety of sources is restricted. State broadcasting monopolies do not serve the public interest but then in some smaller markets, a monopoly newspaper may be the only way to provide access to local news. Rules on monopolies need to be carefully designed to promote plurality of content, without providing the government with an opportunity to interfere in the media. Legislation should be guided by the principle of maximum disclosure; public bodies should be under an obligation to publish key information; public bodies should actively promote open government; exceptions should be clearly and narrowly drawn and subject to strict ‘harm’ and ‘public interest’ tests; individuals should have the right to appeal against a refusal to disclose information to an independent administrative body, which operates in a fair, timely and low-cost manner; the legislation should provide protection for ‘whistleblowers’ who release information on wrongdoing.
The controversy between the freedom of expression and national security is laid out in Principle 1(d) so that “No restriction on freedom of expression or information on the ground of national security may be imposed unless the government can demonstrate that the restriction is prescribed by law and is necessary in a democratic society to protect a legitimate national security interest. The burden of demonstrating the validity of the restriction rests with the government.”. Under international law the freedom of expression is limited under Art. 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that states, “(1) Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law (2) Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law”. Principle 20 guarantees, “Any person accused of a security-related crime involving expression or information is entitled to all of the rule of law protections that are part of international law. These include, but are not limited to, the following rights:
(a) the right to be presumed innocent;
(b) the right not to be arbitrarily detained;
(c) the right to be informed promptly in a language the person can understand of the charges and the supporting evidence against him or her;
(d) the right to prompt access to counsel of choice; etc.
(g) the right to a fair and public trial by an independent and impartial court or tribunal”.
Wherefore if the government wishes to suppress the expression of information they must do so publicly with legal justification so that people know what is prohibited by law and are not abused by the indiscriminate censorship most, or least, evident in the suppression of medical ethics, the only well written exhaustive code of ethics, pertaining to the case-less isolation and prohibition of the conflicting interests of the alma mater – the often nameless disease pathogen.
The Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics is voluntarily embraced by thousands of writers, editors and other news professionals. The present version of the code was adopted by the 1996 SPJ National Convention, after months of study and debate among the Society's members. Sigma Delta Chi's first Code of Ethics was borrowed from the American Society of Newspaper Editors in 1926. In 1973, Sigma Delta Chi wrote its own code, which was revised in 1984, 1987 and 1996, that remains un-amended.
Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the Society's principles and standards of practice.
Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.
— Test the accuracy of information
from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate
distortion is never permissible.
— Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing.
— Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability.
— Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises.
— Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.
— Never distort the content of news photos or video. Image enhancement for technical clarity is always permissible. Label montages and photo illustrations.
— Avoid misleading re-enactments or staged news events. If re-enactment is necessary to tell a story, label it.
— Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story
— Never plagiarize.
— Tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience boldly, even when it is unpopular to do so.
— Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others.
— Avoid stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status.
— Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.
— Give voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid.
— Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.
— Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two.
— Recognize a special obligation to ensure that the public's business is conducted in the open and that government records are open to inspection.
Ethical journalists treat sources,
subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.
— Show compassion for those who
may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when
dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects.
— Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief.
— Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.
— Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy.
— Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.
— Be cautious about identifying juvenile suspects or victims of sex crimes.
— Be judicious about naming criminal suspects before the formal filing of charges.
— Balance a criminal suspect’s fair trial rights with the public’s right to be informed.
Journalists should be free of
obligation to any interest other than the public's right to know.
—Avoid conflicts of interest, real
— Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.
— Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity.
— Disclose unavoidable conflicts.
— Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable.
— Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence news coverage.
— Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; avoid bidding for news.
Journalists are accountable to
their readers, listeners, viewers and each other.
— Clarify and explain news
coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct.
— Encourage the public to voice grievances against the news media.
— Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.
— Expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media.
— Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others.
New technologies, such as the Internet, and satellite and digital broadcasting, after the invention of such illiterate, but informative luxuries, as the radio, television and cinema, offer unprecedented opportunities to promote the freedom of expression and information, as well as problems for the holders of intellectual property rights to be paid. The high cost of print and broadcasting media kept and keeps the information disseminated to the public highly controlled by the interests of those in political power. The advent of the Internet greatly expanded the accessibility of the print media to the general public but the loss of a monopoly rights on literacy by institutions of higher education has led to a dramatic deterioration in the ability of college educated people and government officials, the ruling elite, to compose prose documents, think for themselves and freely express an opinion contrary to a false one. This has always been the problem with the ruling elite, since before they were first condemned to eternal damnation as a democratic society, but the biological warfare has gone economic again and Google’s lies regarding their market capitalization are to blame; for the infringement of the International Criminal Court (ICC) upon the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) HA-24-10-06.
The Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers v. Writers Guild of America HA-30-11-07 revealed that this judicial domination of the moral and material interest of the mass media that is straining labor relations is not entirely from the Rome Statute of 1999, the evil upon which the unconstitutional Euro is rooted. Congress made an error, at the time the USA joined in the contempt of Serbian reparations ordered by the International Court of Justice, in the codification of section 406 of the WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act of 1998 Pub. L. No. 105-304, 112 Stat. 2860 that misplaced, the otherwise acceptable, Assumption of contractual obligations related to transfers of rights in motion pictures, at 28USC(180)§4001 must be redressed by transferring the section to a new Chapter 14 of Title 17 of the United States Code Copyright at 17USC§1401. This is very important because Hollywood and the American motion picture industry, always too obsessed with sex and war movies to dissolve the Democratic and Republican (DR) party, must free its famous, and the not so famous, from abuse aggravated by the new judicial infringement of their industry. However where there is a will, there is a way, and the motion picture and copyright industry in general really needs to escape the clutches of their estate lawyers by respectfully purchasing the rights to the settlements to their disputes from the author, who puzzle them out, and cease to rely upon overwhelming force to make up their mind.
AMPTP v. WGA negotiated the issue of payment for new media such as the Internet and digital broadcasting. It was concluded that DVD residuals must double, Internet and new media sales should offer high residuals of 2.4% to avoid future conflict and authors must be entitled to a small residual from advertising revenues to improve collaboration. Since 2000, media conglomerate revenue from entertainment segments has increased 51% from $63 billion to $95 billion. Over the same period of time, Writer earnings and residuals have increased only 20% from $1.1 billion to $1.3 billion. Between 2005 and 2006 writers actually saw a decline in their income, only the highest-paid 25%, saw a 1.7% rise in earnings for those at the 75th percentile to $253,377. This is basically the same phenomenon that is being witnessed around the world, across all market sectors and trades – despite the great advance in the freedom of information created by the Internet there has not been a commensurate liberation of the purse-strings and only the richest are getting richer, while the middle class is getting poorer and the poor are becoming more numerous.
The class struggle in new media is led by Google. There have been a considerable number of copyright infringement complaints in regards to the digitalization of copyrighted works from library archives as noted in the way the Author’s Guild Sued Google citing massive copyright infringement in 2005. The Google Library Program has agreements with four academic libraries — those of Stanford, Harvard, Oxford and the University of Michigan — and with the New York Public Library to create digital copies of substantial parts of their collections and to make those collections available for searching online. The rich and famous authors complained of not being paid. The people who publish their e-books on the web at their own expense were censured and Google became an arm of the establishment. The Internet is the most incredible library of all time and as such cannot
In general, society and the government must learn to capitalize on the right to write to promote social development, using real human intelligence duly processed by the task of writing, instead of the horrible security apparatuses of a one party judicial tyranny and the tortuous misconduct of the educated illiterates and their soldiers against those they call slaves, that arises. From a young age we have been taught to read and write but are called stupid students, not paid and degraded if we ever had anything meritorious to say, and at the higher levels forced to pay the readers in order to pervert what could be a real social welfare system based upon the right to write, rather than the work of war. The freedom of press, alone, is not enough to sustain a working economy, negligence to abuse does not put food on the table, but freedom from abuse is a necessary prerequisite for any functioning economy and the freedom of the press does globally sustain a million published authors of books and another million journalists annually, but falls dramatically short of paying the 35 million publishers of Internet blogs, and, in fact, probably no-one who is truly due payment because they are both poor and actually suing the government for a meaningful redress of grievances, as Hospitals & Asylums (HA) does. In review of the case law, first amendment freedoms of speech and the press are protected by the fourteenth amendment equal protection of the laws against the abridgement of privileges and immunities and deprivation of life, liberty or property.
The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works of September 9, 1886, completed at Paris on May 4, 1896, revised at Berlin on November 13, 1908, completed at Berne on March 20, 1914, revised at Rome on June 2, 1928, at Brussels on June 26, 1948, at Stockholm on July 14, 1967, and at Paris again on July 24, 1971, and amended on September 28, 1979 gives to authors, publishers and film producers the right to sell that which would not otherwise be free, such as a book or a movie, by physically restricting access to those who purchase the rights, and to exchange those rights, and in some cases allowing judicial enforcement against piracy. Under Art. 9 authors have exclusive right to authorizing the reproduction of their work in any manner or form. Art. 11 bis provides that authors of literary and artistic works shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing the broadcasting of their works or the communication thereof to the public by any other means of wireless diffusion of signs, sounds or images; therefore they do have the right to demand residuals from advertising. Negotiation of these rights is a matter for national legislation that shall not in any circumstances be prejudicial to the moral rights of the author, nor to his right to obtain equitable remuneration which, in the absence of agreement, shall be fixed by competent authority. First Amendment Rights and Freedoms envisioned by the Founding Fathers of the United States of America in 1791 provided, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”.
In the pre-eminent freedom of the press case, New York Times v. Sullivan 1964, Dr. King’s Court held that some kinds of speech and writings, such as "obscenity”, and "fighting words," such as found in those laws condemned and redressed in Human Rights Campaign (HRC), Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR), et al v. US Presidential Candidates Barack Obama and John McCain whose foreign policies fail Asia and the Near East (ANE), US Congress in defense of Title 22 Foreign Relations and Intercourse (a-FRaI-d) and the Court of International Trade (CoITUS) HA-28-7-08 and the decisions of the Federal Reserve (FR-ee) in 2008-9 made without citing any sources are not expression within the protection of the First Amendment, freedom to discuss public affairs and public officials is, unquestionably, the kind of speech the First Amendment was primarily designed to keep within the area of free discussion. A representative democracy ceases to exist the moment that the public functionaries are by any means absolved from their responsibility to their constituents; and this happens whenever the constituent can be restrained in any manner from speaking, writing, or publishing their opinions upon any public measure, or upon the conduct of those who may advise or execute it. An unconditional right to say what one pleases about public affairs is the minimum guarantee of the First Amendment. The classical formulation of the principle underlying the First Amendment is that: "Those who won our independence believed that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones. Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law - the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech (free press) and assembly should be guaranteed”.
While there are many cases where the State has a duty to pay authors with substantive proposals discovering inefficiencies in the government and reforming them, the two specific instances where the rights of authors are most protected is in the case of false imprisonment under Art. 14 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights and for claims of torture under Art. 14 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment that federal torture statute is alarming ultra vires Arts. 2, 4 & 14 of, to the total discredit of the 111th Congress. We should be ever mindful of the wise counsel of Chief Justice Hughes who stated, “Imperative is the need to preserve inviolate the constitutional rights of free speech, free press and free assembly in order to maintain the opportunity for free political discussion, to the end that government may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes, if desired, may be obtained by peaceful means”. Therein lies the security of the Republic, the very foundation of constitutional government. The people must be ensured ample opportunity to determine and resolve public issues. Subjugated knowledge, the blocs of historical knowledge which were present but disguised, beneath the level of cognition or scientific validity, because academic intellectuals, judges, politicians and journalists represent the interests of groups in power, must be empowered to enlighten political discussion and discipline political misconduct (Collins 1990:18). While there may be many works of fiction, financed publishers, and fully employed professional journalists who must be guaranteed the freedom of the press, when it comes to suing the government for a redress of grievances, it is the material right of the author to be paid compensation that secures to the State the moral freedom to peaceably assemble.
The authors attributed to having written the articles are in fact only loosely associated with the content of the articles above, however the artistic liberty has been taken to convey the importance of citing sources in order promote free and open political discussion that is sustaining to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and contributing to the creation of common knowledge.
Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers v. Writers Guild of America HA-30-11-07
Associated Press v. United States 326 US 1 (1945)
Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan 372 U.S. 58, 70 (1963)
Cantwell v. Connecticut 310 US 296 (1940)
City of Chicago v. Tribune Co., 307 Ill. 595, 601, 139 N. E. 86, 88
Google Inc. v. Hospitals & Asylums HA-24-10-06.
Human Rights Campaign (HRC), Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR), et al v. US Presidential Candidates Barack Obama and John McCain whose foreign policies fail Asia and the Near East (ANE), US Congress in defense of Title 22 Foreign Relations and Intercourse (a-FRaI-d) and the Court of International Trade (CoITUS) HA-28-7-08
NAACP v. Button 371 US 415 (1963)
Near v. Minnesota, ex rel. Olson 283 US 697 (1931)
New York Times v. Sullivan 376 U.S. 254 (1964)
New York Times Company v. United States 403 US 713 (1971)
Stromberg v. California 283 US 359 (1931)
Trial of John Peter Zenger, 17 Howell's St. Tr. 675, 721-722 (1735)
Amendment I to the United States Constitution (1791)
Article 1 Section 1 of the Utah Constitution (1895)
Elizabethan Poor Law (1601)
Licensing Act (1643)
Motion Picture Copyright Transfer Act HA-25-9-08
Sedition Act (1798)
Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776)
WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act of 1998 Pub. L. No. 105-304, 112 Stat. 2860
The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works of September 9, 1886, completed at PARIS on May 4, 1896, revised at BERLIN on November 13, 1908, completed at BERNE on March 20, 1914, revised at ROME on June 2, 1928, at BRUSSELS on June 26, 1948, at STOCKHOLM on July 14, 1967, and at PARIS on July 24, 1971, and amended on September 28, 1979
The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. General Assembly resolution 39/46 of 10 December 1984
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966
The Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information. Article 19. November 1996
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. General Resolution Res. 217AIII. 10 December 1948
Abrams, Floyd. Speaking Freely: Trials of the First Amendment. Viking Penguin. New York. 2005
Burns, James McGregor. Packing the Court: The Rise of Judicial Power and the Coming Crisis of the Supreme Court. The Penguin Press. New York. 2009
Collins, Patricia Hill. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. Routledge. New York 1980
Edelman, Rob ed. Freedom of the Press. Greenhaven Press. Farmington Hills. 2006
Epps, Garrett ed. The First Amendment Freedom of the Press. Its Constitutional History and the Contemporary Debate. Prometheus Books. New York. 2008
Franklin, Benjamin. An Apology for the Printers. Pennsylvania Gazette. Philadelphia. June 10, 1731. Reprinted in Albert Henry Smyth ed., The Writing of Benjamin Franklin 10 vols. (New York: Macmillan, 1905-1907), 2 172-79. Reprinted by Garrett Epps et al. The First Amendment Freedom of the Press. Its Constitutional History and the Contemporary Debate. Prometheus Books. New York. 2008. 41, 40-45.
Graff, Harvey J. Literacy, Society and Schooling: A Reader. Ed. By Suzanne de Castell, Allan Luke & Kieran Egan. University of Cambridge Press. Melbourne, Australia. 1986
Haynes, Charles C.; Chaltain, Sam; Glisson, Susan M. First Freedoms: A Documentary History of First Amendment Rights in America. Oxford University Press. New York. 2006
Madison, James. The Virginia Report of 1799. As reprinted from Leonard W, Levy ed. Freedom of the Press from Zenger to Jefferson: Early American Libertarian Theories. Bobbs-Merrill. Indianapolis, IN. 1966 In Epps, Garrett ed. The First Amendment Freedom of the Press. Its Constitutional History and the Contemporary Debate. Prometheus Books. New York. 2008
Milton, John. Areopagitica. Reprinted from Areopagitica, with a Commentary by Sir Richard C. Jebb and with Supplementary Material. Cambridge University Press. 1918. Epps, Garret ed. The First Amendment Freedom of the Press. Its Constitutional History and the Contemporary Debate. Prometheus Books. New York. 2008
Pearlstine, Norman. Off the Record: The Press, the Government and the War over Anonymous Sources. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. New York. 2007
Posner, Richard A. The Little Book of Plagiarism. Pantheon Books New York. 2007
Sanders, Tony J. Book Proposal. Hospitals & Asylums. HA-24-8-07