In Chapter 5 of Media Today, the author began with the First Amendment right to freedom of speech, of the press, and the concept of “no law” being able to abridge the rights of the press. However, we see time and time again throughout the chapter that in this ever changing world the concept of “no law” is used on a case by case scenario. As things get more complex and the freedoms of the press overlap and abridge other freedoms, there is a constant battle over what is freedom of the press and what is not.

In regards to public figures, we see that the press will win in almost any situation because public figures have forfeited their right to privacy after being in the spotlight. For example, in the Supreme Court case New York Times v Sullivan, the New York Times  was under fire due to false statements in an article focused on Montgomery Public Safety commissioner, L. B. Sullivan and his troops in the mistreatment of African Americans during the Civil Rights movement. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, after Sullivan won in local courts, and was turned over because Sullivan was a public figure and there was no actual malice detected in the piece.

Although much of the time the press is able to come away vicarious from a battle of freedoms of the press versus rights of privacy, they often are brought to court for their acts. There is still talk today about whether something that may seem obscene, which is mostly objective depending on the judge, can be used in mass media. Can someone write about overthrowing the government? For now, the answer is yes because of the First Amendment, however, as we see more of a push for censorship the answer could soon be no.