Austerman 1

The freedom of the press and speech, its protection, and its significance are topics that

unite journalists around the world, regardless of nationality or culture. Journalism is a

critical field that requires protection because it attempts to determine and publish the facts,

no matter how unpopular they may be. To understand fully the importance of freedom of

speech and its powerful ramifications, one must first know what a journalist is. The Walter

Cronkite School of Journalism at Arizona State University teaches that a journalist is

someone who desires to report the truth in a fair and unbiased manner. If journalists have to

be concerned with governmental repercussions, they may forgave accuracy in favour of their

own safety. News will not be accurate but will, instead, be propaganda. When encountering

such a situation, those few journalists who dare to write the facts face the prospect of

punishment, whether open or covert.

Germany, the United States, and the Dominican Republic belong to the United

Nations, which entails their agreement with the UNs Universal Declaration of Human

Rights. Article 19 in this document states, Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion

and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek,

receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers (The

Universal Declaration of Human Rights). A variety of laws have been enacted in these

countries to protect journalists. Understanding the laws relating to free speech created in

these countries and the conditions surrounding the formation of these laws are essential to an

appreciation of the significance of the legislation. Germany, the United States, and the

Dominican Republic, three countries that have experienced massive growth, cultural and

political change, and increasing democracy over the past one hundred years, provide varying

examples of the legislative protection that is provided to journalists. An examination of the

Austerman 2

current laws, history, and cases that have shaped this legislation provide insight into this need

for protection. The United States represents the largest economy in the world, Germany

represents a nation that has emerged from the most repressive government, and the

Dominican Republic represents an emerging third-world country. These three countries

provide and an interesting cross-section of the presence of freedom of speech.

To understand the beginning of freedom of speech laws in Germany, one must

examine the history and the cultural impact of regulations post World War II. After World

War II, the Western Alliances established Basic Law Article 5, which currently protects

free speech in Germany. Its provisions state Everyone has the right to freely express and

disseminate his opinions in speech, writing, and pictures and freely to inform himself from

generally accessible sources Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of

broadcast and films are guaranteed There shall be no censorship (Krotoszynski 96). This

article takes an adamant approach to preventing and prohibiting restriction of the news.

Liberty for truthfulness of the press is especially important to Germany because of its long

history of press limitations during times of war. A further examination of the countrys

extensive history with issues surrounding freedom of the press helps to understand the

significance of Article 5.

As early as World War I, the German government used censorship to ease public fear,

gain public support, and suppress rebellion. The government and military authorities

censored German papers throughout World War I for the stated goal of creating public safety

and wellness for their citizens. The government was afraid noncompliance would lead to

public uproar and rebellion. For example, the government mandated that editors publish

preventative censorship, undeniably propaganda:

Austerman 3

Newspapers that prove too daring are dealt with more severely The editor may be

imprisoned or inducted into auxiliary service, the establishment may be confiscated

and silenced for the remainder of the war or the paper may be subjected to a

preventative censorship which requires that the copy for all political articles must be

submitted to the censor before publication (Randall).

The government designed the censorship of German papers to prohibit any article critically

involving military matters and political criticism from being published. Through censorship,

German officials created a standardized and extremely slanted form of news, intended to

glorify the Central Powers. This policy of censorship combined with the inability to access

uncensored news reports from other countries denied the Germans knowledge of actual

occurrences in the war (Randall). Not only were news reports censored, German officials

also altered and manipulated the news reports of the events of the war by highly editing

words or phrases in radio dispatches (Randall). For example, In the case of President

Wilsons war address of April 2, 1917, more than half of the text was omitted in the Wolff

Bureaus version The convincing recital of the causes which provoked us to war was

curtailed and distorted (Randall). Although short-lived, these were effective techniques.

Unfortunately, for the German people, this misrepresentation of truth and absence of

journalistic freedom continued after World War I and extended into World War II. Adolf

Hitlers Nazi regime also used extreme censorship, carefully worded manipulation of news

releases and fabrication of the German articles printed in the German press for their own

gains. These policies became so extreme, that In Hitlers Germany, the government

maintained total control over the German national press, ensuring that news favorable to the

Nazi war effort was disseminated regardless of the actual state of the war (Baker). Hitler

Austerman 4

and the Nazi party censored political speech and government criticism for the same reasons

that were relevant in World War I: Hitler wanted full support from German citizens for his

policies, his agenda, and his party. Many consider Hitlers complete control of the press to be

the most successful use of propaganda by military and government officials that the world

has ever seen (The Press: Hitler's Paper Yoke). Hitler began consolidating newspapers to

prepare for his role as a dictator, years before he actually acquired power:

Sown a full 13 years before Hitler's accession, sprang the most perverted, rapacious

and successful propaganda apparatus the world had ever known... By 1936, after just

three years in power, the Nazi party owned two-thirds of all German news circulation

outright and tightly controlled the rest Not a line was printed without official

approval, not an editor escaped the role of Nazi stooge (The Press: Hitler's Paper

Yoke).

The degree of effort Hitler put into attempting to control and regulate the press to produce

propaganda illustrates his belief that the newspapers can have an overwhelming impact on

peoples opinions. This fear of the influence of the newspapers was the first democratic

liberty Hitler revoked. The fact that Hitler was able to gain German support for himself by

falsifying stories in the press demonstrates that people place an inordinate amount of trust in

their countrys news. Part of Hitlers success was due to the fact that he was able to rely on

the support and trust of Germans, because of his manipulation of the countrys newspapers.

After World War II, Germany began to rebuild itself and its laws. Once Germany fell

under the rule of the Allies, it adopted the Basic Law, Article 5 that protects freedom of

speech to an extent. However, Germany places a higher value on personal dignity, which can

Austerman 5

be explained as the just and fair treatment of a person. The German law provides greater

protection to guarantee a moral and ethical life. When personal dignity and press freedom

collide, personal dignity will most likely win. In the hierarchy of constitutional rights,

Germany values personal dignity more than a free press:

In Germany, one finds a nation that is committed to the freedom of speech, but only

within carefully circumscribed limits, and only to the extent that the commitment to

free speech does not conflict with other constitutional values Germany has simply

weighed the various social costs and benefits very differently than has the United

States (Krotoszynski 94).

Germanys decision to value personal dignity over freedom of the press shows a commitment

to character intended to protect the quality of life of its citizens. In conclusion, the current

legal status of a free press in Germany embraces the idea of personal dignity and has grown

from a Hitler-driven manipulation of the news to a present day highly respected and trusted

state.

To understand the growth of journalistic freedom in twentieth century Germany, one

must examine a legal case involving Der Spiegal, a weekly Germany magazine. In 1962, the

magazine published an article titled "Bedingt abwehrbereit," which means, Prepared for

defense to limited extent" that cited confidential government documents. Based on the

contents of these documents, the article claimed West Germany lacked a sufficient military

force ("Search of Magazine Office Judged Illegal). The police arrested Rudolf Augstein,

Der Spiegels editor-in-chief, and Conrad Ahlers, the articles author, and others who worked

for the magazine and were charged with treason. In addition to the arrests, the police

Austerman 6

searched their homes and thirty-six police officers seized the magazines offices in Hamburg

and confiscated thousands of documents. ("Search of Magazine Office Judged Illegal). In

response to this extreme approach by 1965, the court had acquitted Augstein and Ahlers of

all charges (Journalism in Germany). The court ruled,

It is insufficient that the charge of treason against the suspect Augstein was specified

through the description of the Spiegel article in the arrest warrant simultaneously

issued against him. In spite of this, it was still unclear as to which parts of the lengthy

Spiegel article were alleged to have treasonable contents ("Foreign Law Translations

- Spiegel-decision).

This was a significant case because it established the limited use of search warrants in

newsrooms. In 2000, the International Press Institute named Augstein a World Press

Freedom Hero (Rudolf Augstein). This scandal is important to Germanys legal history

revolving around journalism protection because it shows that Der Spiegel was aware of the

consequences of printing controversial information, was not intimidated, and challenged the

government, to establish their for the right to expose the truth, regardless of any

repercussions. This publication gained a respected reputation internationally because of their

demonstrated ability to uncover the truth:

Today, Der Spiegel is a journalistic power Its exhaustive coverage and analysis of

news events and its concise writing have won it widespread respect and one of

Europes biggest circulations it sells more than one million copies each week

[Augstein] introduced a new style of investigative journalism to Germany and shaped

Austerman 7

public opinion in the Federal Republic for more than five decades (Rudolf

Augstein).

Clearly, freedom of the press and investigative journalism in Germany is necessary for the

democracy to flourish. As a result of Der Spiegels legal challenge, it gained an international

reputation as a watchdog news institution. Furthermore, the repercussions of the scandal

resulted in greater freedom for German journalists because it challenged the governments

involvement and in control of the media. The necessity and fundamental role of a free press

to a democratic society is evident in an examination of any democracy.

The freedom of the press in the United States of America is not only highly valued

and honored, but is the cornerstone of the countrys democracy. This countrys historical

struggle with how and to what extent the First Amendment applies to all United States

citizens is essential to every Americans daily life. The First Amendment states Congress

shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise

thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people

peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

(FirstAmendmentcenter.org). The protection of this amendment guarantees journalists

extensive use of freedom and truthful expression without censorship or involvement from the

government. The existence of a free press occurs with much labor, controversy, and

dedication

Since the colonial era in America, its people have exhibited, a strong urge and need to

criticize and critique the government and government officials, especially if they are deemed

to be failing in their responsibilities to their citizens. In Britain, the monarchy had used

Austerman 8

censorship to maintain the status quo and prevent challenges to authority. While the British

colonies were developing in North America, Americans relied on pamphlets to voice their

opinions and outrage, which in essence was an early form of what would, today, be

considered newspaper exposure. After the 13 colonies won their independence, the newly

formed colonies adopted the First Amendment to the Constitution in 1791 as part of the Bill

of Rights, which allowed greater freedom for the writers of the pamphlets. Despite the fact

the founding fathers wrote this broadly worded law was written over two hundred years ago,

the Supreme Court has ruled that the language is flexible, allowing Justices to make

decisions on a case-by-case basis (Russomanno, 52).

The 19th

century was a pivotal era for American journalists because it was the

beginning of the yellow press and sensationalism. Key features of yellow journalism include

using deceptive headlines and pictures for the sole purpose of selling more papers and

distorting factual stories to create intrigue in their readers. The demand of the United States

(sic) people for absolutely free press allowed such aforementioned newspapers [New York

World and New York Journal]to print whatever they so desired (Yellow Journalism).

This period is important in journalism history because reporters were required by editors to

write stories that would sell papers, instead of writing factual articles that would hold

governmental authorities accountable for their misdeeds. Editors allowed sensational and

sometimes false articles to be printed because publishers were not always held accountable

for their decisions. (Yellow Journalism). Furthermore, this time of false and inaccurate

journalism created the need for a positive change in the newspaper industry.

Since the beginning of the twentieth century in the United States, those who teach and

practice journalism rely on two paradigms regarding journalistic freedom: the marketplace of

Austerman 9

ideas metaphor and the democratic self-government theory (Krotoszynski 13). Justice Oliver

Wendell Holmes created the marketplace of ideas metaphor, emphasizing that the First

Amendment is constantly evolving and adapting because politics or society sometimes affect

the way it is influenced. This flexibility is important because Citizens are free both to speak

and to listen as they think best; truth is served by a free and full competition of ideas within

the community, rather than by paternalistic state-sponsored efforts to protect citizens for the

ill effects of bad ideas (Krotoszynski 14). This exemplifies Holmes theory that the

government should not attempt to protect its citizens from bad ideas. Holmes advocated for a

free market for speech, on the model to free markets for items such as cars, jewelry, soap, etc

(Loveland 43). There are three assumptions in Holmes theory; the first is that everyone must

be able to enter the marketplace and exchange ideas. Secondly, writers and speakers should

present their own information. Lastly, the audience must assess the ideas and come to their

own conclusion (Loveland 43). The Supreme Court uses Holmes idea because it allows for

conversation and discussion. As a result, this paradigm is the central tradition of US free

speech jurisprudence It is now taken quite literally as the appropriate framework for First

Amendment jurisprudence (Loveland 43). Since the First Amendment is flexible, the

Holmesian method of interpretation allows for greater understanding and protection of the

legislation.

Alexander Meiklejohn, who advocated for self-reliance in the government, wrote the

other model regarding the First Amendments application in todays society. Meiklejohns

democratic self-government theory states that the First Amendment exists to facilitate

properly self-governance by the people (Krotoszynski 15). Krotoszynski explains

Meiklejohns theory of the First Amendment

Austerman 10

Tolerates government action aimed at ensuring that everything worth saying gets

said For example, if concentrations of wealth or limited access to the electronic

media muzzled important voices within the community, the government could adopt

measures aimed at levelling the playing field, including limitations on the use of

wealth to disseminate a particular idea or advocate the election of a particular

candidate (Krotoszynski 16).

This theory only protects good ideas and leaves little-to-no discussion about questionable

beliefs. For this reason, it has not been as well received as the Holmesion metaphor. Since

the First Amendment was designed to facilitate self-governance by creating an open

dialogue, anyone can participate and express their viewpoint. The legislation is aimed to

protect all ideas, actions, and statements whether or not they are deemed good. For the

previously stated reason, Supreme Court Justices often use Holmes metaphor over

Meiklejohns theory.

The most important Supreme Court case regarding the First Amendment and

journalistic freedom in the United States is New York Times Company v. Sullivan (1964).

The consequences of the decision became evident as:

Routine litigation of claims arising under the Free Speech Clause did not really exist

prior to World War IIt was not until the Warren Court issued its landmark opinions

in New York Times Company v. Sullivanthat the contemporary free speech

orthodoxy took firm root in the collective consciousness of the legal and political

communities (Krotoszynski, 12).

Austerman 11

This case essentially shaped and established current standards for freedom of the press in the

United States because it created the actual malice standard. Actual malice is publication of

defamatory material with knowledge that it was false or reckless disregard of whether it was

false or not (The Lectric Law Library). The Supreme Court ruled that criticism of the

government and authorities is necessary for a healthy democracy to flourish; therefore, it

should have protection under the First Amendment (Russomanno 57).

New York Times v. Sullivan is an important case for journalists because, for the first

time, it set the standard for libel law in relation to the First Amendment. This ruling has

created extensive freedom for journalists to write about public figures and government

officials. During the American Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s, a variety of civil rights

activists purchased a full-page ad in the New York Times suggesting Southern officials used

violent and extreme methods to prevent and demonstrations and other forms of civil

disobedience (Russomanno 150). The majority of the information presented in the

advertisement was true but some of the statements contained errors. The case originated

when L.B. Sullivan, the police commissioner of Montgomery, Alabama filed a libel claim

against the Times and some of the civil rights leaders who had purchased the newspaper

space (Russomanno 150). After the Alabama Supreme Court ruled for Sullivan and

awarded him $500,000 in damages, the New York Times appealed the case to the Supreme

Court. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favour of the Times (Russomanno 150).

Supreme Court Justice William Brennan wrote that the newspaper had published the

advertisement without actual malice. Starting with this landmark case, public officials must

now prove that news organs knowingly and willingly published the inaccurate information.

Brennan and the Court advocated that the First Amendment was intended to create an

Austerman 12

aggressive press. With the freedom to have a barrier of the First Amendment surrounding

journalism, the press is able to provide unfettered, investigative information to the public.

Brennans decision encouraged the media to act as watchdogs in reporting the truth.

Furthermore, the New York Times v. Sullivan has had a major impact on the media in this

country because in creating actual malice, the Supreme Court granted news organizations

more flexibility when reporting about public and government figures. The refinement of a

free press as it has developed in the United States provides ample evidence of its history of

commitment to this ideal in contrast to that seen in developing countries.

The Dominican Republic is a rapidly growing Latin American country learning the

importance and the necessity of a free press and which entails reduced government

interference in news reports. Currently, the government plays a controlling role in the press

and this seems to be a result of corruption in the government (Dominican Republic Press).

The importance of the role played by a free press is apparent in the countrys constitution

article 8, Section 6,

All persons have the right, without being subject to censure, to express freely their

thoughts in either written words or any other medium of expression, either graphic or

oral. When such expressed thoughts be an attack against the dignity or morality of

other persons, public peace, or against community standards, those sanctions as

dictated by law may be applied. All subversive propaganda is prohibited, either by

anonymous agents or by any other means of expression that has as its object the

provocation of disobedience of law, yet without impinging by this the right to analyze

or give critique of those same legal precepts (Dominican Republic Press).

Austerman 13

Although this seems to provide adequate protection, the governments lack of enthusiasm to

implement these previsions allows for a semi-free press. The Dominican Republic, which

shares the island of Hispaniola with neighbouring Haiti, was a Spanish colony and their

conservative culture reflects this (Dominican Republic Press). The attitudes and opinions

of the population evidence the continued influence of the Catholic Church. To understand

further the reasoning behind the countrys legislation, one must examine the country and its

history.

The citizens of this developing island nation have had extensive experience with

tyranny, which has shaped the governments role in regulating the media. Rafael Trujillo, a

dictator who used violence, terror, and corruption to maintain control of the Dominican

people, oppresed the country from 1930 to 1961 (Dominican Republic The Era of

Trujillo). His heavy-handed rule certainly prevented any meaningful development of

concepts relating to a free press. Trujillo utilized censorship and repression of expression

during his regime (Gonzlez). The censored press allowed Trujillo to promote his own

beliefs, spread propaganda, and prevent opposition. Scholars have compared Trujillos

violent rule of the Dominican Republic to Hitlers control of Germany:

The level of repressive control exercised by the state all invited comparison with the

style of his contemporaries, Hitler in Germany and Mussolini in ItalyBasically,

however, Trujillo was not an ideologue, but a Dominican caudillo expanded to

monstrous proportions by his absolute control of the nation's resources (Dominican

Republic The Era of Trujillo).

Austerman 14

The character of Trujillo and the severity of the situation affecting the Dominican Republic

had reached an intolerable level. Nowhere was this more evident than in his use of the press

to his advantage. The first step in silencing a nation as Trujillo did in the Dominican

Republic is to censor the press. It is imperative to realize the power and significance of

censorship because this is the first step in silencing a nation, like Trujillo did to the

Dominican Republic.

Since Trujillos assassination, newspaper reporters freedom and reliability have

gradually increased. Today, the island has developed into a country that desires greater press

freedom. For example, there is now greater diversity in the newspapers available to the

Dominicans,

The most influential of the islands several daily newspapers are published in Santo

Domingo and include El Caribe, founded in 1948, and Listn diario, founded in

1889 Other important daily and weekly publications include La Informacin, El

Nacional, and Rumbo A variety of newspapers and periodicals are also imported

from the United States Compared with other developing countries, the Dominican

Republic has a high per capita rate of newspaper circulation (Gonzlez).

The country has a functioning press that its citizens are utilizing. The fact that it has a high

rate of newspaper circulation shows that the Dominican people are interested in being

informed and aware of the situations in their country.

Despite these gains, the greatest threat to Dominican journalism remains the violence

that journalists experience. Agents of the government have attacked or murdered editors and

reporters, especially those whose publications have dealt with investigation in the

Austerman 15

government. RSF [Reporters Sans Frontiers] reports There have already been eight reports

of violence against journalists in the country in 2011, with the majority perpetrated by the

authorities (Medel). The greatest threat is the violence that journalists endure by the

government who should be protecting them. To prevent these atrocities from occurring, the

Dominican government needs to enforce the provisions in the constitution that provide

protection for speech and press. Dominican journalists will not be fully free until the threats

of violence by those acting on behalf of the government is ended.

Unlike Germany and the United States, the Dominican Republic lacks a central case

that has defined journalistic freedom in the country. Instead, there are multiple smaller

lawsuits, which illustrate the general lack of such freedom. As recently as 2003, hosts of a

radio news broadcast, asked their listeners to rank the chances of the leading contenders in

the 2004 presidential election in a race with the devil President Mejia lost to the devil in

the radio poll (Dominican Republic. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices). The

government subsequently arrested and detained the news hosts who where then charged with

slander. The Inter-American Press Society criticed the government, accusing them of

intolerance toward the press (Dominican Republic. Country Reports on Human Rights

Practices). After receiving much criticism, President Mejia their release days later. The

negative impact of the bias affecting the news industry and its inability to criticize the

government in this Latin country cannot be overstated. Another recent and unfortunate case

involved:

A television broadcaster with close ties to the opposition PLD [Partido de la

Liberacin Dominicana] party lost his job after he reported that the Secretary of the

Armed Forces was handing out money to potential PRD votersAccording to the

Austerman 16

broadcaster and the Dominican School of Journalists, the Government pressured the

broadcaster's employer to fire him. (Dominican Republic. Country Reports on

Human Rights Practices).

The corruption of the government and lack of guaranteed protections adversely affect the

relationship between government officials and journalists. If a journalist knows the

government will punish him for his investigative work than he will have no motivation to

explore issues and publish his results. This PLD case highlights both the corruption in the

government and governments lack of tolerance. In conclusion, as long as such abuses by the

government continue, the people of the Dominican Republic will not have a free press, unlike

that enjoyed by citizens of Germany and the United States.

A comparison of the freedom experienced by the journalists in Germany, the United

States, and the Dominican Republic allows for greater understanding of the obstacles that

remain in the quest for universal protections. The liberal interpretation of a free press in the

United States conflicts with the more conservative beliefs prevalent in Germany

(Krotoszynski 98). The relative value that Germany places on personal dignity, the respect

for life and desire for equality for all, is equivalent to the value the First Amendment of the

United States Constitution places on freedom of speech and press. Journalists in the

Dominican Republic suffer more restrictions than those in Germany and the United States:

because of the corruption of government officials. The Dominican Republic has not yet

reached the level of free speech that the way Germany has. According to Dominican

attorney Alvaro Leger, a major reason why journalists do not enjoy freedom of the press is

because of the countrys history involving the Trujillo regime (Leger). The question become

Austerman 17

why did Germany and the Nazi regime develop protection for journalists while the

Dominican Republic did not?

Both Germany and the Dominican Republic, two countries that achieved nationhood

around the middle of the nineteenth century, have experienced a powerful dictator. Their

responses to this experience have differed, resulting in differing degrees of journalistic

freedom. The German people embraced the Allies attempt to establish this freedom via

Article 5, which presented them with a fully developed policy. In contrast, the Dominican

Republic has been left to find their own way of achieving this freedom, which took the

United States almost 200 years to achieve.

The press in the United States enjoys the greatest degree of legal protection among

the three countries. This freedom resulted from the New York Times v. Sullivan Supreme

Court case because it capped almost two centuries of increasing freedom. Germany, which

also guarantees a substantial degree of freedom for its journalists, nevertheless continues to

place a greater value on personal dignity. Germany, which has substantial protections

instilled, will allow for more press freedom and less personal dignity, despite the Der Spiegal

scandal. Germanys totalitarianism system was defeated and the democratic rule of the

United States and England was imposed on them after World War II. The Dominican

Republic, provides the least protection of the press, is a developing country still struggling

with the complex issues of balancing governmental control and a free press. Although the

country has experienced rapid growth and progress in the last fifty years, so real and absolute

freedom of the press remains unattained. The right to a free press is essential because it

allows for dignity, growth, and independence, of an individual, a country and a world

through truthfulness and criticism.

Austerman 18

Works Cited

"Dominican Republic Press, Media, TV, Radio, Newspapers - Newspaper,

Television, News, Circulation, Stations, Papers, Number, Freedom, Broadcasting,

Advertising, Role, Government, Censorship." Press Reference. Web. 13 Feb. 2011.

.

"Dominican Republic The Era of Trujillo." Country Studies. Web. 16 Feb. 2011.

.

Dominican Republic. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. U.S.

Department of State. Web. 21 Feb. 2011.

.

"Foreign Law Translations - Spiegel-decision." Home | The University of Texas at

Austin. Web. 02 July 2011.

.

Austerman 19

Gonzlez, Nancy, and Howard Wiarda. "Dominican Republic :: The Trujillo Regime

-- Britannica Online Encyclopedia." Encyclopedia - Britannica Online Encyclopedia. Web.

16 Feb. 2011. .

"Journalism in Germany - Freedom of the Press - Goethe-Institut ." Deutsch Lernen,

Kultur Erleben - Goethe-Institut . Web. 15 Jan. 2011.

.

Krotoszynski, Ronald J. The First Amendment in Cross-cultural Perspective: a

Comparative Legal Analysis of the Freedom of Speech. New York: New York UP, 2006.

Print.

"Legal Definition of 'Malice, Actual'" The 'Lectric Law Library's Entrance &

Welcome. Web. 04 Jan. 2011. .

Leger, Alvaro. Telephone interview. 21 Feb. 2011.

Loveland, Ian. Importing the First Amendment: Freedom of Expression in American,

English and European Law. Oxford: Hart Pub., 1998. Print.

Medel, Monica. "Police Gunfire Wounds Dominican Reporter." Knight Center for

Journalism in the Americas. Web. 16 Feb. 2011.

.

Austerman 20

Randall, James, Germanys Censorship and News Control, North American

Review (1918:July/Dec.)

"Rudolf Augstein." The Global Network for a Free Media. Web. 14 Jan. 2011.

.

"Search of Magazine Office Judged Illegal: Top German Court Boosts Press Freedom

- SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International." SPIEGEL ONLINE - Nachrichten. Web. 11

Jan. 2011. .

"The Press: Hitler's Paper Yoke," TIME.com. Web. 18 Nov. 2010.

.

"The Universal Declaration of Human Rights." Welcome to the United Nations. Web.

15 Nov. 2010. .

"Yellow Journalism." ThinkQuest. Oracle: ThinkQuest. Web. 1 Jan. 2011.

.