Why is the US ranked as #45 in Press Freedom ratings, despite its extremely permissive free speech laws?

Question

According to the Press Freedom Index, the US is ranked at a meager 45th position in the global ranking of countries. In comparison, New Zealand is currently at the 8th spot despite having an official "Chief Censor" position and routinely banning the circulation of documents the government dislikes, such as the Cristchurch shooter's manifesto. In the US such censorship would be impossible as the country's First Amendment provides the strongest protections for freedom of the speech in the entire world.

So why isn't the US routinely ranked as #1 in freedom of press ratings? Are there topics which cannot be discussed in US media under the threat of censorship or persecution?

There's no doubt that the freedom of speech protections under the First Amendment are strong. But in what basis do we conclude that they are the strongest worldwide? — Obie 2.0, Mar 29 '19 at 08:10
Could be disinformation, if the U.S. has the best free speech, other nations who then by necessity, want to limit speech, would probably publish things like this. At the very least it pushes to change a winning solution, there by removing it. Alternatively while we have very good free speech, social groups and parties do prevent expression. How many Americans would want to make their plite for increased help from welfare right now? In front of their coworkers. But this transcends the government and is an attribute of human social behavior. — marshal craft, Mar 30 '19 at 03:56
Additionally I routinely meet Americans who say such things as "you wouldn't say that in person" there by demonstrating their wish to forcibly silence others. So in my opinion amongst the people, there are real challenges to free speech that I don't think can be solved by government. Basically if Americans choose to silence people, they can vote on it and then do so. So the safety of free speech rests actually in American social beliefs. Also I think those surveys are complete nonsense in my opinion. But I would say free speech in u.s. While good is fragile and subject to propaganda. — marshal craft, Mar 30 '19 at 04:01
So, theoretically, if another country would also have the "same" first ammandment in their constitution (yes, other countries do have constitutions as well. Yes, other countries also protect the freedom of the press), who should then be ranked 1? And on the ammandment: sometimes an idealistic law and bitter reality diverge — Mayou36, Mar 30 '19 at 12:36
@Mayou36 no other countries have such a constitutional clause. Pretty much all other countries ban certain books, texts and publications because the government dislikes them. — JonathanReez, Mar 30 '19 at 15:16
This just reflects the anti-American bias of the authors of the index. — President James K. Polk, Mar 30 '19 at 15:44
@JonathanReez: I looked in a few constitutions of countries, and could easily find clauses saying that those countries had freedom of speech. So my sample was not representative, I did not understand your claim correctly, or your claim is false. — , Mar 30 '19 at 17:33
@JonathanReez "the gouverment'? Not in every country "the gouverment" has it's own interests. somethimes, "the gouverment" is the people and they may ban some books (e.g. certain extremistic, rassistic books), not because they dislike them but because the majority of the people think that these books do no good in general. Don't confuse freedom btw with "the right to always do": every freedom stops where it affects other freedoms. E.g. you're born free, if you kill other people (and thereby affect their freedom) is therefore a reason for prison, although this affects "your freedom". — Mayou36, Mar 30 '19 at 18:16
@Mayou36 no book should be banned in a truly free society, no matter how racist or extremist. That's the price of freedom. — JonathanReez, Mar 30 '19 at 18:41
@JonathanReez that may be true, let's assume it. And now the question: why do you correlate "there is the first ammandement which says that..." with "it is like that"? It is not. There were also books banned in the US. I don't say this is bad per se. I say that the freedom in the US, as is many other countries, is great but not perfect. You imply this perfection in your question (by stating "just because there is the article, it follows that" -> nope, it does not have to). — Mayou36, Mar 30 '19 at 19:37
I always find it odd that the US prides itself on free speech but beeps out even mild swearwords on the radio and TV. Isn't that a form of censorship as well? — Sumyrda - remember Monica, Mar 30 '19 at 22:07
@Sumyrda it's only done on publicly aired television. HBO will show just about anything. — JonathanReez, Mar 31 '19 at 00:03
@Mayou36 obviously it's how the law is interpreted in practice, not the letter of it — JonathanReez, Mar 31 '19 at 00:24
@JamesKPolk Jumping to the conclusion that anyone claiming your country is not perfect must be biased is not helpful. In fact, the mantra with which you've been brought up (that the US is (a) the "free-est" country in the world, and (b) the best country in the world, and (c) the two necessarily correlate) is propaganda/cultism that you'd do well to try to shake; it's you who's biased! — Lightness Races in Orbit, Mar 31 '19 at 01:18
@JonathanReez Thats. The. Point. That's how the law is interpreted in the US. The ranking is not about "who can write the best sentence in the constitution" but how is it really. So whoever has, in full real, not just on paper, the best freedom of speech, is ranked higher. On the radio censorship: probably it's for the live only. But it still fulfills the definition of the censorship: blocking something from being sent. Or what is that if not censorship? It's like saying: ok, the newspaper is censored, but only in the printed format, not online. — Mayou36, Mar 31 '19 at 07:59
@JamesKPolk let's say there are two people. One states, his country (one out of hundreds) is the best in the world. Because the country itself says it's the best (the ammandement). The other doubts that and says that it is pretty good (rank 45) but not the best. Who do you think has some kind of bias? — Mayou36, Mar 31 '19 at 08:05
"Are there topics which cannot be discussed in US media under the threat of censorship or persecution?" The recent Espionage Act cases targeting legitimate journalistic critiques are the latest in a long string of attacks against the first amendment perpetrated directly by, or with significant involvement from the government. — don bright, Apr 01 '19 at 06:05

score 122 · Answer 1 · edited Jun 17 '20 at 09:20

122

You need to keep in mind that the press freedom ratings is not a measure of freedom of speech, but freedom of the press, and the US is still ranked as "fairly good".

Specifically, the index describes itself:

What does it measure?

The Index ranks 180 countries and regions according to the level of freedom available to journalists. It is a snapshot of the media freedom situation based on an evaluation of pluralism, independence of the media, quality of legislative framework and safety of journalists in each country and region. It does not rank public policies even if governments obviously have a major impact on their country’s ranking.

They also provide more detail about their methodology and the questionnaire used to create the index is available online.

I was unable to find a full report, but in a short analysis, the index specifically mentions Trumps hostility to the media.

They go into a bit more depth about this in a press release for the 2017 data:

In 2017, the 45th President of the United States helped sink the country to 45th place by labeling the press an “enemy of the American people” in a series of verbal attacks toward journalists, attempts to block White House access to multiple media outlets, routine use of the term “fake news” in retaliation for critical reporting, and calling for media outlets’ broadcasting licenses to be revoked. President Trump has routinely singled out news outlets and individual journalists for their coverage of him, and retweeted several violent memes targeting CNN.

The violent anti-press rhetoric from the White House has been coupled with an increase in the number of press freedom violations at the local level as journalists run the risk of arrest for covering protests or simply attempting to ask public officials questions. Reporters have even been subject to physical assault while on the job.

However, the Trump effect has only served to amplify the disappointing press freedom climate that predated his presidency. Whistleblowers face prosecution under the Espionage Act if they leak information of public interest to the press, while there is still no federal “shield law” guaranteeing reporters’ right to protect their sources. Journalists and their devices continue to be searched at the US border, while some foreign journalists are still denied entry into the US after covering sensitive topics like Colombia’s FARC or Kurdistan.

edited Jun 17 '20 at 09:20

Community

1

answered Mar 29 '19 at 07:28

tim

37,031
15
102
133

9

I still think it's silly they ranked US on par with South Korea (#43) given the level of censorship in the latter. Interestingly they rank Japan even worse (#67) – the gods from engineering Mar 29 '19 at 07:45
25

Apparently the year-to-year changes in rankings are used to "send a message" based on very recent and often obscure issues. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/04/25/national/japans-press-freedom-ranking-rises-2018-due-part-deteriorating-conditions-elsewhere – the gods from engineering Mar 29 '19 at 07:53
19

Ugh, I feel this information should be in your answer, but it's going to sound like a "Yeah, but what about Obama" post and I don't mean that. Their methodology focuses a fair bit on their feelings towards Trump, but it's worth mentioning that while we have the freedom of information act, how much an administration complies with that is extremely variable. The AP did a report that Obama spent a record 36 million blocking (or trying) requests, which would (should?) account for a lower score as well. www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/obama-administration-sets-new-record-withholding-foia-requests – AHamilton Mar 29 '19 at 08:41
17

@AHamilton Their explanation focuses on Trumps incitement against the media, the resulting physical assaults, etc (in addition to pointing out that "the disappointing press freedom climate [...] predated his presidency"). But their methodology doesn't (it's based on a questionnaire that doesn't mention Trump but is about "pluralism, media independence, media environment and self-censorship, legislative framework, transparency, and the quality of the infrastructure", complimented with data of abuse of journalists). – tim Mar 29 '19 at 08:49
21

The actual questionnaire is located here: https://rsf.org/en/detailed-methodology
It is sent only to journalists operating in that country and the questions contain a significant number of subjective questions rated on a scale of 1 to 10. I wasn't suggesting they were just making up the score, but they took an extremely difficult analytic task and did it horribly, by almost any measure. The question of how the US could be so low has been fully answered though, so having an additional answer to that effect isn't particularly helpful. – AHamilton Mar 29 '19 at 09:50
2

The discussion about the credibility of various US news networks was deleted because it escalated into personal insults. Please watch your language and remember our code of conduct. – Philipp Mar 29 '19 at 23:40
given the focus on trump in the linked quotes it would be nice to include what the rating was in the Obama era. That would give a sense of rather the issue was purely Trump, as the quotes imply, or if trump was just a comparatively minor additional issue to an already low(ish) rating. – dsollen Oct 30 '20 at 15:39
@AHamilton Blocking requests or refusing to answer, while not particularly great, are not actually an impingement on freedom of the press - they were still perfectly allowed to write articles about how the administration was refusing to reveal important information. There's a significant difference between that and actively restraining the press and treating them hostilely with harassment and/or violence. – Shadur-don't-feed-the-AI Jun 22 '21 at 09:29
@Fizz used to "send a message". Ugh... hey, everybody, let's completely ruin people's trust in global rankings by skewing ranking to "send a message" that will be ignored by one and all! – RonJohn Jun 22 '21 at 19:19

score 84 · Accepted Answer · edited Mar 30 '19 at 15:29

84

tim's answer already covers the Press Freedom Index methodology.

I'd like to add that for the United States the significant component of the result is the abuses score of 37.40.

This is a fairly large number: the second highest among the top 50, after Denmark (which has a score of 45, apparently, due to the murder of Kim Wall in 2017).

US Press Freedom Tracker lists 122 cases of abuse in 2018 including:

42 physical attacks;
26 subpoenas/legal orders;
11 arrests;
4 border stops;
8 chilling statements (6 of them from Trump).

As far as I can tell from the methodology, the last category is not included in the abuses score:

which translates to:

scoreExamination = 10 * log(90*number of deaths + Coefficient_i*number of imprisonments_i + 10*number of kidnappings + 5*number of material seizures + 3*number of exiled + number arrests + number assaults)

If the US had the lower abuses score its overall score would have been 20.32 (28th place, just behind Slovakia).

As the abuses score isn't weighted to population, it isn't surprising that the US scores worse than New Zealand:

The US is 60 times larger than New Zealand in terms of population.
The US is, by and large, a more violent country.
The US has a huge news media industry. Wikipedia lists 15 nationwide networks for the US and 1 for New Zealand. I'm pretty sure that the difference is even larger on the local level.

Even on a logarithmic scale, the US is expected to have a higher score.

The rest of the score is based on the questionnaire and the factor of scale doesn't have such an impact on it.

edited Mar 30 '19 at 15:29

JJJ

39,094
10
121
182

answered Mar 29 '19 at 08:11

default locale

3,592
2
26
31

42

So... the United States has a high score because the score doesn't include population (and presumably because the reporting rate for incidents is high)? – chrylis -cautiouslyoptimistic- Mar 29 '19 at 08:31
7

@chrylis Yes, the abuses score isn't weighted to population, I'm in the process of editing my answer. – default locale Mar 29 '19 at 08:33
31

Wow, that's incredibly important. No wonder a tiny country like New Zealand is so high up. – Obie 2.0 Mar 29 '19 at 08:38
43

@Obie2.0 It's important, but it's not that important. The rest of the score comes from the questionnaire and doesn't depend on the population. The abuses score is logarithmic which alleviates its impact – default locale Mar 29 '19 at 08:42
1

What are these "multiple high-profile journalists murders" in Denmark? – Kruga Mar 29 '19 at 09:28
28

If you go look at the actual data, "violence against journalists" is everything. Only looking at a small sample, one of the incidents reported was a reporter and his camera crew being robbed at gunpoint and their security guard shot. https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/cbs-san-francisco-news-crew-robbed-gunpoint-its-security-guard-shot/ While that's obviously not ok by any stretch, a fairly strong case could be made for both that that doesn't have anything to do with how safe being a journalist is, and also that larger populations are much more adversely affected by their methods. – AHamilton Mar 29 '19 at 09:37
1

@Kruga Kim Wall is one example, I'm not sure if there're others. Frankly, I don't really understand how the score was calculated for Denmark. – default locale Mar 29 '19 at 09:39
@defaultlocale That's also the only one I know about. But that's not multiple. – Kruga Mar 29 '19 at 09:46
2

@Kruga Makes sense, I've edited this part. – default locale Mar 29 '19 at 09:50
2

That Wikipedia page on intentional homicide rate per country seems highly suspect. There are incomplete sections of the page, and many countries are listed as having 0 homicides. I don't remember numbers from other similar reports I've seen, but I do remember some relative ordering, and that page has them out of order with my (admittedly not perfect) memory, such as England and some other nations having lower homicide rate than the United States which I seem to recall was not the case. Even if I'm wrong on that last part, the incompleteness and many zeros still seems highly unreliable. – Aaron Mar 29 '19 at 16:47
2

In addition to @AHamilton's point, I'd like to add that the incidents listed do not necessarily reflect the government's action against the press (Freedom of the Press is a block on government actions against the press. Certainly the government does not advocate the citizen's mugging journalists in the field.).
For the for those curious to do so, a quick population accounting would be to divide the score by the nations population (Score/pop) and then multiply by a per capita figure (Usually 100,000 people, though as long as the number is consistent for all countries, it doesn't matter.).
– hszmv Mar 29 '19 at 17:01
@Aaron I was able to find exactly 10 countries with a zero. Now, I don't really find it surprising that the likes of Monaco and Isle of Man have 0 intentional homicides in a year, but maybe I'm wrong and the data is indeed wrong. Most of the data is coming from the UN and, at least for the US and New Zealand numbers look realistic for the purposes of my answer. – default locale Mar 29 '19 at 17:14
8

@Aaron: The United States absolutely has a higher homicide rate than the UK. That's kind of its schtick among major first world countries: Way more guns, way more homicides. Methodologies vary, but the ratio remains the same. My source has the non-firearms murder rate in the UK slightly higher (11.444/M in UK, 9.44/M U.S.), but the 32.57/M firearm murder rate in the U.S. (vs. 0.236/M in the UK) more than makes up for it; both there and Wikipedia agree the US rate per capita is ~4x the UK's. – ShadowRanger Mar 29 '19 at 19:31
2

And "our schtick" with other countries is that the statistics are often twisted to make it look like guns are bad. Of course there will be more gun-related homicides in a place with more guns. But I remember seeing data that many European countries have higher rates of knife murders than the US has, and the same went for other non-gun weapons. Also, most murders are not performed with guns. So "way more guns" has nothing to do with it. However, the data that I saw for "US knife murders < UK knife murders", for example, might be what I was thinking of, which is not the same as "all homicides" – Aaron Mar 29 '19 at 20:05
13

@Aaron: The link above has a number of non-gun-homicide statistics. The US is significantly higher in all of them. The "knife murders" in particular was apparently a false claim by Trump. – BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft Mar 29 '19 at 20:29
it's not the abuse score, (and the difference for a size factor of 60 is only 17.7 points on the decibel that they use) even ignoring the abuse score entirely. NZ still wins – Jasen Mar 30 '19 at 02:59
3

Your translation appears to be missing nbreMédiassaccagés, and puts its coefficient of 5 onto "number of exiled" which should have a 3. A minor point, but I'd love to have the right translation... it seems to be something like "media lootings"? Perhaps seizures of devices and materials from journalists? – Tim Pederick Mar 30 '19 at 04:11
1

@ANeves Thank you very much for the translation. Can you please clarify what does nbreMédiassaccagés mean? – default locale Mar 30 '19 at 07:02
3

The failure to weight by country population reminds me of the US being described as the fifth deadliest country for journalists based on absolute numbers. – Golden Cuy Mar 30 '19 at 10:28
3

@defaultlocale I skipped a translation accidentally, like Tim Pederick said. I'm not sure how to translate it better than Tim did: "Nombre Médias Saccagés", number of media-people whose material was taken, seized. – ANeves Mar 30 '19 at 15:15
1

@ANeves Looks good. Again, thanks to both you and JJJ for your effort. – default locale Mar 30 '19 at 16:04
8

People keep mentioning that the the abuse score should scale with population but I think zero is the only acceptable number, especially when it comes to arrests, killings and exiles, and zero has the property of not scaling with total population at all. – Jan Mar 30 '19 at 16:38
4

@Aaron "Also, most murders are not performed with guns." That is incorrect. In the United States, the vast majority of homicides are committed with guns. About 11 out of 14 murders are committed with guns, excluding the fact that some of the data in the "not stated" categories might also include guns, which would increase the number even further. https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/ – John Apr 02 '19 at 00:23
4

It's a bit stupid that Kim Wall should increase Denmark's score. While she was there because she was a journalist, she wasn't murdered because of it. – pipe Apr 02 '19 at 11:28
@ANevesthinksSEisevil Are you sure "seized" is the right word to use ? "Saccager" means destroying, devastating. When speaking about a place it means wrecking, ravaging it. Historically it meant ransacking (looting), but the definition shifted over time.
In the context of this answer I don't know how to translate it. But it definitely refers to the number of media intimidation via wrecking of their offices or destruction of their material, wether done by government agents or simple citizens.
– Menkid Oct 30 '20 at 01:11
1

This is a good source answer. But to give an appropriate scale I think, since you already have the formula's available, it would be interesting if you re-did the math for USA and one or two other higher ranked countries (like new zealand) using an alternate abuse score that adjusts for population size. That would better show how much of a difference population size is/isn't in the overall ranking. – dsollen Oct 30 '20 at 15:52

mootmoot · Answer 3 · 2019-09-26T09:09:23.063

The Wikipedia page of self-censorship just tell part of the story, there are other "invisible hand" such as corporate censorship.

Media may reject story or even advertisement that "offend" their main advertisement buyers. A good example is consumer goods price hikes by the change of packaging, US media usually dare not to report it, or using the free market as excuses to not to expose them.

On the other hand, financially self-sustainable consumer group and media in industrialised Europe country are usually more freely to criticized the corporate practice than USA counterpart.

the gods from engineering · Answer 4 · 2019-03-29T08:39:00.353

19

While I agree the issues listed by RSF are serious, I would not put too much stock in relative ranking large swaths of such indexes because they can be sensitive from year to year changes on fairly obscure issues.

Compare the ranking on RSF's Freedom Index vs FH's Freedom of the Press

United States  #45 #33
France         #33 #44
South Korea    #43 #66
Japan          #67 #48

How the various issues are weighted in such indexes can have a big impact on relative ranking of countries. Now if some index ranks China (#176 #186) ahead of the US, I'd start to get really worried.

edited Mar 29 '19 at 08:39

answered Mar 29 '19 at 08:26

the gods from engineering

158,594
27
390
806

2

You picked four countries and their ranks to compare. How do the rest line up? Maybe a scatterplot would help here. – JAD Mar 29 '19 at 10:52
4

@JAD: alas the only systematic comparison of these indexes (I found) was published 12 years go (and for RSF they had only a couple of years data), and I don't feel inclined to do that level of work for a question here. The correlation was 0.81 back then. – the gods from engineering Mar 29 '19 at 10:54
6

@JAD: a for my non-random sampling: I was shocked they ranked South Korea above the US given the known issues with censorship there. I picked Japan for comparison in the region. And France because RSF is based there, while FH is based in the US. – the gods from engineering Mar 29 '19 at 10:59

Stilez · Answer 5 · 2019-03-31T11:41:56.550

There are multiple issues going on.

The big one is, that you can have rights, but how they are implemented and enforced in practice - the unspoken aspects of it - really are crucial in determining what your real situation is, and your safety or potential risks in exercising those rights.

For example - in some countries you have free speech and freedom - except that you may lose your job, or be taken by secret police if you actually try to use those rights. In others, there are strong incentives that steer companies controlling the media or publication, so that rights are again, hard to really exercise.

It's not a free press if exercising that freedom in good faith risks you getting pejorative treatment, any more than it is encouraging whistleblowing, to have a whistleblowers charter in a company but realistically your career dead-ends anyway and the matter gets hushed up and you described as a problematic troublemaker. In many cases you can fight back legally if treated wrongly, but in others you can't (or its difficult to: money, standing, whatever), and for real press freedom you shouldn't have to.

So when you look at how a country is rated for freedom of the press, you have to nearly ignore the rights people * should * have according to their country's laws and constitutions, because those will almost always say it's fine and great. You have to go by what actually happens on the ground, not what's claimed to be the case or should be the case.

So you look at things more in this kind of way: When journalists come across a story that's negative or harmful to some powerful interest (person, police, govt body, politician), or could be seen as threatening them by suggesting they aren't okay in some way (they treat workers badly, they committed genocide, they're institutionally racist, they broke their own laws or committed illegal acts). Or they've reported on a foreign matter in which their govt has some involvement, or talked down their own or another country/states. How does the country actually treat them?

Will it block them at the borders? Arrest them (many places)? Charge them with defaming the nation? Revoke their right to attend press conferences? Harass them? Pressure the employer to fire or discipline them, or dissociate itself from their reports (subtly or not so subtly), or begin an "investigation" into "irregularities" at the employer such as tax related? Consider them legitimate targets for surveillance/tapping? Or what? What about foreign journalists?

Unfortunately in that light, many countries that you'd think do well, actually don't. Because its in those kinds of cases, that press freedom is really tested and able to be seen (or not) for what it really is.

Update: The saying that "It's the exception that proves the rule" is very relevant here. The word "proves" in this saying has its olden-day meaning of "tests" (as in the expression "put to the proof") - it is the exceptions and edge cases that really test and demonstrate how "real" a rule or belief is, not the regular ordinary cases which anyone can point to and say "see? it's fine".

AnoE · Answer 6 · 2019-04-01T06:49:39.853

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer and not an U.S. citizen.

The formal "Freedom of Speech" in the U.S. means that the government (lawmaking, executive etc.) must not restrict the speech of its citizens in any form or fashion. I.e., it is a restriction of the government. It does not necessarily mean that everybody can say or write anything at all without any kind of repercussions.

E.g., APPLYING THE CONSTITUTION TO PRIVATE ACTORS (NEW YORK LAW JOURNAL):

With the notable exception of the Thirteenth Amendment’s ban on slavery, the individual liberties guaranteed by the United States Constitution protect against actions by government officials but not against actions by private persons or entities.

You can find plenty of further reading in the collection of sources linked from here.

This means that any other involved party (except the government) are not covered under the "Freedom of Speech" moniker. Or, in concrete terms; everybody is free to go to the courts to try to shut down their neighbour (which according to the comments may be hard in practice); and of course resort to non-constructive or even shady/illegal activites as laid down in other answers.

It is absolutely not the case that anybody can just say anything at any point in time without consequences.

Examples where Freedom of Speech will not help you:

If your boss does not like how you talk to him (or what you write), he can fire you in concordance with whatever regulation your state has, i.e. "Right to Work", or remove you from your current position and "park" you somewhere else in his company.
If you spread harmful lies about people, they are free to go to court to make you stop. And of course they can try to do the same even if what you wrote is true. Or try to cow you with a large lawyer budget.
While you seemingly are allowed to openly insult police officers - they are associated with the government after all and thus under the Freedom of Speech limitations regarding retalation against you - you certainly cannot do that to just anybody without repercussions.
Going to a meeting of (non-government) people of the other side of the political spectrum and starting a ruckus may absolutely get you into trouble (depending on how beligerent everybody is - not with the "government" but with the guys actually there); and Freedom of Speech does not protect you (other laws may of course, i.e. if they beat you up while throwing you out of the building).

There may be other laws making the work of the press easier, but Freedom of Speech is not necessarily one of them. The index linked in the question mentions a few other (non-governmental) forms of suppression.

In the end, there are many ways to repress or discourage a member of the press without conflicting with Freedom of Speech.

I think you've misunderstood how it works. The government doesn't have to be either the target of the speech or a party thereof. They can't restrict what people say regardless. Example: the government can't pass a law saying that no one can insult Wal-Mart. Also, slander and libel lawsuits are extremely difficult to win, especially against individuals. Finally, in some jurisdictions there are protections against being fired without cause. — Obie 2.0, Mar 29 '19 at 09:51
Further, how does this address the press freedom index issue? Only the last part seems to mention it and it's not very clear to me how it all ties in. — Obie 2.0, Mar 29 '19 at 09:53
Thanks for the comments, @Obie. I'll try to make my train of thought more clear later (basically I want to say "Freedom of Speech does not mean that everybody can say anything all the time" ;) ). — AnoE, Mar 29 '19 at 14:18
@Obie, please check my revisions. Does that make more sense now, or is the answer too "all over the place", still? — AnoE, Mar 29 '19 at 16:20
Some quick corrections to your examples:

Depends on the states. States that are "Right to Work" allow the boss to fire you for any reason, whether you are bad at your job or he doesn't like your face. States that don't have this do have protections in place and the boss can be sued.

Depends on how famous you are before the lies are spread. There's a current case making it's way through the courts will probably define the line better. — hszmv, Mar 29 '19 at 17:14

score 5 · Answer 7 · edited Mar 29 '19 at 14:42

5

The United States ranked 45th worldwide in press freedom this year, slipping two spots from last year's ranking, according to Reporters Without Borders' World Press Freedom Index.

The backdrop: Since President Trump was elected in 2016, the U.S. has dropped from 41st to 45th in Reporters Without Borders' rankings. However, it ranked as low as 47th in 2011 during the Obama administration — despite ranking as high as 20th in 2009.

edited Mar 29 '19 at 14:42

Alexei

52,716
43
186
345

answered Mar 29 '19 at 14:37

John Vick

69
1

7

It is not clear how this answers the question from OP. – Alexei Mar 29 '19 at 14:43
It at least attempts to describe a relation both of the absolute score, and changing score, with time periods, this can be useful in several ways. – marshal craft Mar 30 '19 at 04:17

Jouni Sirén · Answer 8 · 2019-03-31T01:36:16.160

Because the United States is a superpower.

Like other freedoms, press freedom is a matter of negative and positive liberties. Constitutions and laws establish negative liberties, which serve as the foundation of the freedom of the press. Positive liberties, driven by the priorities of successive administrations over decades, determine whether the freedom can be actualized. This is where the United States loses.

The stakes are always high in the politics of a superpower, and the priorities are often driven by the needs of the powerful. Many actions are justified by matters of national security. Yet every time the national security justification is used, something else is valued higher than freedom. Small countries with lesser ambitions can often afford more freedom, if they choose so. Their political issues tend to be less serious, and their administrations can concentrate more on domestic matters.

Most countries that rank consistently higher than the US in the Press Freedom Index and the Freedom of the Press report are ones with modest international ambitions. Instead of trying to change the world, their administrations have prioritized making the country a good place to live in. The United States also used to be like that, but its administrations have had other priorities since WW2.

Edited to clarify: The comparisons are not about theoretical freedoms protected by constitutions and laws. They tell how often the freedom of the press is violated in practice, regardless of the reason. Every time a court forces a journalist to reveal their sources or a whistleblower is jailed for revealing classified information, press freedom is violated. It does not matter that the reasons for the violation may be morally and constitutionally justified, because it's still a violation. Major powers cannot afford as much freedom as certain lesser countries, because they have other priorities. Their national security issues are simply more serious, and they face such issues more frequently.

This answer fails to make any concrete or complete points in either direction regarding free speech in the U.S. and frankly is absolutely useless. One can obtain very little from it. — marshal craft, Mar 30 '19 at 04:10
I don't know if this is the criterion that they used. Maybe it's a good one, but is it what's behind their classification? — Obie 2.0, Mar 31 '19 at 01:13

score 5 · Answer 9 · answered Mar 30 '19 at 17:12

One aspect of the rating is, frankly, silly. It demonstrates the perils of applying numbers without context.

I refer, of course, to "chilling" statements by Trump.

It has been well-established for 30 years now that the "mainstream media" (minus Fox News, of course) is personally overwhelmingly (liberal/progressive/left of center). As a result, chilling statements by Trump only serve as a goad to further criticism of him. Which, frankly, is as it should be.

In a country with greater government control of the press, chilling comments are a serious issue. Unless I seriously misunderstand my own country (and if I did, I wouldn't realize it, of course), at least in the current political climate this illustrates that not all criteria have the same applicability between all countries.

score 3 · Answer 10 · answered Mar 30 '19 at 03:30

3

Because the chief censor does not often interfere with news reporting, the recent banning of the hate manifesto and the mass murder video were unusual (as was the event itself)

The chief censor does not report directly to the government and is not beholden to the goverment's whims. Their responsibility is to suppress publications that are harmful to society.

I'm pretty sure is an a reporter in USA tried to publish a report on child sex that included still or motion pictures of childeren engaged in sexual acts this work would also be subject to censorship.

answered Mar 30 '19 at 03:30

Jasen

286
1
5

1

This doesn't support or refute the assumption that New Zealand has superior rights to the U.S. only defends New Zealand which is unnecessary because the extreme circumstances surrounding the issues raised are a completely different question pertaining to trade of rights and security. – marshal craft Mar 30 '19 at 04:14
I realise that I had not actually answered the whole question, and only addressed one of the assumptions that it was based on. – Jasen Mar 30 '19 at 04:20
3

Censoring the shooter's manifesto and video is censoring newsworthy content. "suppress publications that are harmful to society" is doublespeak is typically something heard of only in authoritarian societies. – President James K. Polk Mar 30 '19 at 15:56
really? name one news-worthy thing in eithter – Jasen Mar 30 '19 at 19:14
3

In a free society you don't need permission from the state to publish, nor do you need to prove the "newsworthiness" of speech. – President James K. Polk Mar 30 '19 at 21:10
3

"The chief censor does not report directly to the government". The power to censor is itself an oppressive force. Whether you call this power center "independent" of the government is utterly irrelevant. – President James K. Polk Mar 30 '19 at 21:13
@James K Polk so when you said there was hewsworthy content you were lying? – Jasen Mar 30 '19 at 22:42
Giving the government conrrol of the censors allows them to control what information reaches the population. and to strengthen their power. separation prevents that failure mode. – Jasen Mar 30 '19 at 22:46
2

@Jasen - All of it? Knowing what motivated them, knowing who they're affiliated with. Knowing what characteristics far-right people might have. Those are all very important and thus newsworthy. Even little things...in the video they told people to subscribe to Pewdiepie, establishing that Pewdiepie's white supremacist following is both real and more serious than many people had thought. – Obie 2.0 Mar 31 '19 at 01:10
1

From a free speech - as opposed to press freedom - perspective, it seems to me that the absence of a censorship board is liable to have a significant chilling effect. As I understand it, in the US (for example) the only way to find out whether something you want to publish is illegal or not is to go ahead and publish it and see whether or not you get sent to prison. Personally, I'd rather be able to submit it to the censorship board. – Harry Johnston Mar 31 '19 at 03:35
4

I think this answer is important because the question asserts, incorrectly, that New Zealand "routinely" bans the circulation of documents the government dislikes. It is entirely possible that NZ will get dinged for this incident when the Press Freedom Index is next updated, but the current rating can't and doesn't reflect something that AFAIK has never happened before. +1. – Harry Johnston Mar 31 '19 at 03:41

score 1 · Answer 11 · answered Mar 30 '19 at 05:07

1

The press freedom index does not measure rights, it measures the experience of journalists.

If you look at the two nations of your example USA and NZ the difference are clear. The censor in New Zealand does not assess content on whether it hurts the government, the military or any other special interest group, only on whether releasing it will harm society. instructions on bomb-making and cooking methamphetamine are suppressed, reports into possible war-crimes in Afghanistan or financial malfeasance are not.

I'm sure USA has censors too, is the murder video or the hate manifesto available there?

USA is chasing whistle-blowers, NZ is strengthening protection for them.

etc.

answered Mar 30 '19 at 05:07

Jasen

286
1
5

3

Both the video and the manifesto are legal to distribute in the US. – JonathanReez Mar 30 '19 at 05:14
5

This reads like pro-NZ censor propaganda. The USA does not have censors, there is no such thing as "hate" speech, and the NZ shooter's video and manifesto is absolutely protected in the US by its 1st amendment. Finally, you last point is simplistic and false. The US has strong protection for whisteblowers, but releasing classified information is against the law in the both the US and NZ. – President James K. Polk Mar 30 '19 at 15:50
@James - Someone's opinion isn't propaganda just because it's supportive of the government. – Obie 2.0 Mar 31 '19 at 01:15
1

Jasen, why not combine your two answers? They don't look very separate. – Obie 2.0 Mar 31 '19 at 01:16

Why is the US ranked as #45 in Press Freedom ratings, despite its extremely permissive free speech laws?

11 Answers11

Linked