Alexis De Tocqueville’s Thought On Freedom Of Press

The issues of the freedom of press and the freedom of speech have for long been discussed by scholars. Professionals in politics, sociology, communications, and public relations tried to distinguish, whether freedom of press was a positive notion. The book of Alexis de Tocqueville is interesting in terms of discussing the freedom of press through politics only. Besides, the author tended to assume that freedom of press could become a negative phenomenon in the life of society.

These assumptions are surprising for us, who are used to freedom of press and freedom of speech, but Tocqueville’s work should be analyzed in order to understand, in what state the freedom of press is currently found. Democracy in America: the freedom of press “I confess that I do not entertain that firm and complete attachment to the liberty of the press which things that are supremely good in their very nature are wont to excite in the mind; and I approve of it more from a recollection of the evils it prevents than from a consideration of the advantages it ensures.

” (Tocqueville, 2006) Tocqueville did not conceal his attitudes towards the freedom of the press: he supposed that freedom of press could potentially produce political evils, but simultaneously, he also tried to be objective in evaluating the state of freedom of press in the two countries – the United States and France. Freedom of press should be considered in the light of the assumption, that press is the embodiment, and the means of expressing certain ideas.

Press is the means of transferring the ideas to the masses, and the language is the instrument to convey these ideas to the public. It is relevant to state, and Tocqueville recognized this conflict, and no matter how negative or positive freedom of press could be, it did not impact the state of political affairs in the country. This may sound rather contradictory, but the author provides us with a very clear explanation of the subject: he refers to language as “the mere carcass of the thought”.

Consequentially, the press becomes the mere form for expressing the ideas of certain political circles. In case the freedom of press is suppressed, the ideas themselves will not disappear and will continue their existence due to the fact that “the sense and the spirit of the work is too subtle for their [tribunals] authority” . Even in the case censorship is established the word of public in Tocqueville’s understanding will be heard.

In the attempt to objectively evaluate the state of press and its freedom in the world, Tocqueville refers to specific reasons of why some nations simply have to cherish freedom of press: among the major reasons the author discusses the liberty of press as the only source of justice in the countries, where judicial system lacks sound laws to prosecute those who violate laws, possessing legal impunity . In the case with the United States, the freedom of press is the direct consequence of the individual sovereignty, which American citizens exercise.

In the political and legal environment, in which the U. S. citizens do exist, it would be not only inappropriate, but absolutely absurd to adopt the measures of informational censorship . “The sovereignty of the people and the liberty of the press may therefore be looked upon as correlative institutions; just as the censorship of the press and universal suffrage are two things which are irreconcilably opposed, and which cannot long be retained among the institutions of the same people.”

Tocqueville determines the political situation in France and America in the similar revolutionary terms, acknowledging the fact that America did not possess a single germ of revolution, while the roots of the press and freedom of press development in France were mainly found in the social instability, through which that country had to go during that time. The freedom of press in both countries led to the situation, when it was already formed as a singular power, combining both goods and evils.

The situation described in Tocqueville’s work was really similar to that we face today: the freedom of press makes this press almost incompatible with that we call social and political order. Probably, Tocqueville was very predictive and could foresee that the freedom of press could potentially produce public disorder, but in any case he was very objective, recognizing the power of press in the United States. “In France the press combined a twofold centralization; almost all its power is centred in the same spot, and vested in the same hands, for its organs are far from numerous.

“In those terms Tocqueville was trying to express the basic statements of what we currently call “ownership” in press . On the contrary, the American nation did not possess any centralized control over its press, which has become the direct consequence of the freedom of press in that country. According to Tocqueville, America was initially keeping to the opinion, that the more journals it published, the more neutralized would be their effect on the public. However, the frequent situations we now witness are different from the way the author wanted to position them.

The numerous publications are certainly the expression of the freedom of press, but they also tend to produce the clash of opinions, social attitudes and even disorders in the attempt to gain more economic profits. The press has turned to be the mere marketplace of ideas, which is the major discrepancy between the press now and the press then. According to Tocqueville, freedom of press is often the major cause of the situation, when neither of published sources is capable of convincing the public of this or that opinion.

The countries which experience freedom of press also face the situation when “men are not very ready to die in defence of their opinions, but they are rarely inclined to change them; and there are fewer martyrs as well as fewer apostates. ” The freedom of press: Tocqueville’s theory vs. contemporary society “By press is usually meant all media of mass communication although the printed media, as the oldest, is treated as the exemplar in most discussions.

” The press in democratic countries acts independently from the state power, and democratic governments do not have any centralized control over the contents of published texts or the journalists’ activity. The current situation in the freedom of the world press has somewhat changed with the development of globalized Internet resources, which do not make the press free, but rather make the press uncontrolled. One should agree that while these two dimensions determine one issue, they are completely different, and being free does not mean being uncontrolled.

The situation which we observe in our society also possesses similar features described by Tocqueville: he referred to the role of the free press as the guarantee to those, whose legal system was too weak to protect its citizens. These principles are not changed and tend to acquire new stronger features. Volokh states that democratic governments are responsible for their actions ; this is why citizens expect that they will be informed about the decisions, which are taken by these governments on their behalf. Press fosters the realization of this right “to know”, and serves the means of tracking all governments’ actions.

The free press appears to promote the government’s accountability, and is not as frequent source of social disorder, as Tocqueville assumed. However, Tocqueville was right in his assumptions as for the possible negativity of the freedom of press. This negativity is currently demonstrated through the facts of less control and less accountability of press in general. Surely, it is difficult to disagree that the press in the U. S. is free, but not everyone understands real implications of this freedom in the contemporary societal conditions.

First of all, freedom of press is never absolute; our society is not an exception. We are frequently deceived, thinking that everyone has an opportunity to express his thoughts in press. However, “in societies like ours, freedom of press is far from just a facade. There are many possibilities to pressure the media, and there are openings within them. ” Second, our press is not the only source of accumulating our ideas and thoughts; there are numerous expressions and discussions beyond press. A bright example illustrates our discussion. Haenngi spoke about the Multilateral Agreement on Investments.

The conflict arouse from the negotiations held by OECD and the mentioned organization and was expressed in the article published by “Business Week”. The informational explosion has achieved so large scales that the negotiations were ceased, and the press proved its role as the largest carrier of the public bodies’ accountability. This was a small, but a meaningful victory, though objectively, the press in that case was balancing at the edge between the social fairness and social disorder. The situation with the U. S. press is different from the rest of the states due to the American society keeping to high standards of social welfare.

This means that the large portion of the U. S. citizens belongs to whom we call “rich people”. The whole American history proves that the rights to be free were not granted but were won by the citizens themselves. This is why it is possible to assume that “universal suffrage and universal schooling have at last made bourgeoisie stand in fear of the common people, for the masses promised to become king. ” The masses could allow taking such leading positions only because the press could serve an effective instrument in not only expressing the will of masses, but defending their will.

The situation is different in other countries: for example the state of mass media in India is mostly regulated by the narrow circles. The issue of ownership is very relevant for the Indian press . This is why the situation is very unbalanced, and as Tocqueville explained, different states need and use media with different purposes. Simultaneously, the effects of the freedom of press for every state are integrally linked to the level of the legal, social, political and economic development in this state.

Freedom of press cannot exist separately from the mentioned development; otherwise it loses its power and risks being turned into the weapon of influential minorities. Doubtlessly, the press has acquired more opportunities for expression, but it still retains the older features described by Tocqueville. Even taking into account that the author of Democracy in America did not recognize the positive character of the freedom of press, he objectively acknowledged the need for it to exist. We have just entered the stage of social development, when freedom of press is considered to be the sign of the democratic society.

Yet, none of us ever looks inside to understand whether this freedom is genuine. Conclusion The book of Alexis de Tocqueville was very relevant for the time, during which it was being written. It has retained its relevance until today. The present-day society understands the importance of the freedom of press, but it is not rare that the press is being governed by outside factors or players, who wish to use it for the promotion of one’s interests. It is also difficult to distinguish, whether freedom of press is authentic and is not the cover of the political plays “behind the curtains”.

The society has greatly changed since the time Democracy in America was written; the importance of the freedom of press has not changed, though. Its value was supplemented with the well-known processes of globalization and marketing, when the freedom of press is frequently confused with the press being totally uncontrolled and used for the proliferation of certain ideas to obtain economic benefits.

Bibliography

1. Bernabe-Riefkohl, A. “Government Advertising Placement and the First Amendment: Freedom of the Press Should Overweigh the Rights of the Government as Contractor”. Communications and Law 22 (2000): 123-129.
2. Haenggi, S. “The Right to Privacy Is Coming: Balancing Individual’s Right to Privacy from the Press and the Media’s Right to Freedom of Expression”. Houston Journal of International Law 21 (1999): 23-34.
3. Tocqueville, A. “Liberty of the Press in the United States. ” In Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Project Gutenberg, 2006. Volokh, E. “Freedom of Speech and Information Privacy: The Troubling Implications of a Right to Stop People from Speaking About You”. Stanford Law Review 52 (2000): 144-147.