According to Grey Burch, a well respected lawyer, “A free press = more and more reliable information for consumers and producers.” This means that a free press brings reliable information for people looking to get information and people looking to distribute information. Freedom of the press has had more of an impact on American society today than a right to a fair trial because firstly, the press checks on the government to keep it from turning into a dictatorship, and gets rid of tyranny using De Facto Activism which is when bad things are exposed to the public. If the government wasn’t checked over at all times, then tyranny could easily take place like what had happened in North Korea. Again according to Mr. Burch, “Lack of information breeds lack of transparency, which breeds corruption and fraud.” This means that without information, nothing would be protected, which in turn would result in making America corrupt. If the government isn’t scared of having all of their crimes which have been committed shown publicly, then they would be able to do whatever they want without the consent of the american citizens which is the beauty of America and what it is based on. In the Massachusetts Constitution, John Adams, the second president states that “The liberty of the press is essential to the security of the freedom of state.” This means that the press gives us everything that makes us content such as the freedom of speech, privacy, national security, and a right to a fair trial. I agree that “the right to a fair trial is a fundamental principle in the judicial system”, but your argument falls flat when you learn that the freedom of the press means that you can share your opinions, and not limit the freedom of speech one has. The right to a fair trial is fully dependent on the freedom of press, which is why the freedom of the press has had more of an impact on American society today than the right to a fair trial.
In the bill of rights the right we chose is called the freedom of speech in the first amendment. The freedom of speech has made a big impact in our world because with this right we are allowed to give our opinions and our proposals to the government. And according to TheDailyWorld.Com/Freedom of Speech without this right we would not be allowed to have more laws such as speaking in a criminal trial, having proposals to congress, and giving oppinions to the government. Also without this right we would not be able to gather and discuss important issues such as epidemics, under education, world hunger, natural disasters, shelters, and etc. For example, according to who.Int we have had many meeting as close to February, 2016 about finding a reliable cure for Ebola. Also for some countries the people do not even get a chance to speak or the right to assemble. In North Korea “Criticism of the regime or the leadership in North Korea, if reported, is enough to make you and your family ‘disappear’ from society and end up in a political prison camp. It goes without saying that there is no free media inside the country. The only opinion allowed to be voiced inside the country is the regime’s.”(Nick Leonard). Nick leonard graduated with a BFA in graphic design and decided that he would join this site called rebellions. Another example of this is the spark of the syrian war. Once syrian kids were using graffiti on a wall that said “Free Syria”. These kids were tortured without even a word to explain why they did this. Since there is no freedom of speech protesters have constantly tried to explain to the government that they need a democracy. Now the military is ordered by Bashar Al Assad to use chemical weapons against these innocent protesters. Both of these countries have their government falling apart because there is no free speech, and even though North Korea is led by a dictatorship, people are still dying for their free speech. The impact freedom of speech has made is that with it, we have built a government that is led by the people and allowed us to propose our own laws and express ourselves in any way we feel.
The freedom of the press outweighs the right to a fair trial in many ways. First of all it outweighs a public trial because there would be no public trials without the press because the information about it has to be spread by the press and shared with the public. Second of all A fair and speedy trial only affects criminals while the freedom of the press affects the entire population by alerting them if severe storms are coming or if important events or crimes have occurred that should be known by the public. And many people will tell you that it also affects people who have been wrongly accused but the percentages of people who are wrongly accused is only 0.027% while the success percentage is 99.973%.
The freedom of Press states that you are allowed to share information and not limit the Freedom of Speech a person has. In a fair trial people are constantly giving new arguments and giving new information to the Judge. Without Freedom of Press we would not have the right to a fair trial because when you are speaking to the judge you are using the right of freedom of Press and Freedom of Speech to support your arguments.
The lines of what constitutes news and what does not have been blurred. When we have characters like Nancy Grace placing guilt on those who have not been tried yet, it can interfere with the judicial process and that is a problem in my opinion. However, there is no good way to change this without limited the press and I do not think that is justifiable, so it's more of a catch-22.
The right to a fair trial is a fundamental principle in the judicial system. It affords people an opportunity to have a trial that is unbiased and based solely on the merits of the case and the facts of the law. Freedom of the press should not intervene in a person's ability to have a trial conducted by merits and facts rather than opinions and editorials.
The right to free press is an excellent right to have. Its application does not, however, out way the rights of a single individual who is undergoing scrutiny to determine if he/she's rights should be revoked. During these instances the right of the press needs to be suspended briefly till the determination can be made that a person is guilty or innocent and thus receives a fair and impartial trial.
It is important to note we are a republic, not a democracy. A democracy is simply mob rules. A republic realizes that the individual is the sovereign. A fair trial is one of the most basic rights granted to the individual. A free press, by the definition of it, is a public right. I think that after the trail, it can be released, but if there is conflict between the two, the right of the individual to a fair trial win.