Take a US government class. There are several ways the press's freedom are limited by some of the same things that limit free speech. The sedition act of 1918 comes to mind.
Thanks so very much for the thoughtful suggestion, but I don't need to take a government class. That's pretty much my profession.
You seem to have interpreted my question, "Then what does it mean?" as hostile. It wasn't and I apologize if it came across that way. I was genuinely curious, in light of your earlier comments, as to what kind of restrictions you think are appropriate.
Incidentally, the Sedition Act of 1918 was repealed a couple of years later and would probably (hopefully) be struck down as unconstitutional today because the Supreme Court has since clarified that the 1st Amendment protects speech critical of the government and public officials.
What is broadcast on the news is regulated and most definately censored. A good example, you can't drop the f bomb on the nightly news. It's pushed all the time but the limits are there. I was listing the FCC as one example.
Which is entirely consistent with my point that regulation of the
substance of the news is minimal, even in the broadcast context (I didn't say such regulation was non-existent). Restricting the use of profanity doesn't really affect the substance or content of the news.
You listed restrictions on freedom of the press right there.
The notion that intentionally false statements that harm a person's reputation are not constitutionally protected is hardly a significant restriction.
I have no desire to get into a prolonged debate with you about semantics and the degree to which the press is regulated in the United States. The topic of the thread was photos that
were published, and I mentioned you in my original post because I thought you implied they (or some subset of them) should not have been. In other words, you seemed to imply that the publication of disturbing images like the ones that were the subject of this thread should be subject to greater regulation. I disagree because, aside from protecting people from defamation, I generally think the government should leave the press alone. That's all I was trying to say, and that is why I was curious as to what kind of regulation you appeared to be advocating.
Every site has a terms of use. When you violate it they can ban you. It's their house, their rules. And there are a lot of rules out there. I can't think of a single site that doesn't have them.
Of course they do, but a private site's terms of use are not governmental restrictions and, therefore, don't implicate the 1st Amendment.
And the server where the site is housed makes a difference. An example... in some places it's illegal to have a server that hosts adult content. It matters where in the world your server is located.
I don't disagree that it matters where in the world your server is located, but like private terms of use, foreign laws would not implicate the 1st A. I suppose if you choose to host your site on a foreign server, you take what you get. I'm not aware of any laws in the U.S. that prohibit servers in that jurisdiction from hosting adult content (doesn't mean there aren't any, but I would think that would raise 1st A concerns). Although I wish I had time to do so, I have not kept up with SOPA and other proposed legislation that would affect the dissemination of information over the internet.