Sample Paper on Right to Press

The press is can publish any information or opinion they desire provided that the information is not restricted by prior restraint – which is rare. The press freedom does not however provide immunity for what is published, and the press can be liable for what they publish. For instance, one can be sued for libel for publishing false information.

  1. The press includes all publishers and as such students’ publications should not be treated differently from other media outlets. The information the students come forward with is the information that affects them in their surroundings. For instance, in Middlesex high school the student school-run newspaper is trying to publish a review on sex education. The students’ press here is out to enlighten people especially fellow students on sex on the eve of Valentine’s Day where presumably most of sex between students happens.
  2. The unreasonable search is any unwarranted search or any search that lacks the believe that evidence of a crime exists or is present. It constitutes the violation of one’s privacy concerns in their persons and property.
  3. If a section of students undertakes drug tests, then all the students should submit to drug tests. Middlesex high school athletes are put through these tests, and it does not mean it is only them that may be exposed to drugs. The point if it is the policy of the school do perform drug tests then the test should be non-discriminatory. Faculty and administrators should submit to drug tests. They are the management and thus are the best examples to the students. For drug tests to be successful, it should start from the top.
  4. The media was too obtrusive. It directs every sort of headlines to how much Dr. Sheppard was guilty and according to the media it was embarrassing that the police had released the doctor. These series of media publications applied too much pressure on the jury, and it ended up ruling in favor of the newspapers.Dr. Sheppard did not get a fair trial in his first try. The supreme court however after reopening of the case found the first trial that had sentenced him to life incarceration to be unconstitutional. The judge did nothing in his power as required of him to prevent the newspapers from containing the jury.