![]() |
Photo: Google |
![]() |
Photo: Google |
“Freedom of the press is not just important to democracy, it is democracy.” – Walter Cronkite
When we talk about democracy, the idea of a free press sits right at the center. Journalists are meant to report without fear, expose wrongdoing, and hold power to account. But here’s the catch: press freedom is not the same everywhere. Laws, politics, and culture shape how “free” journalists really are.
In this blog, I’ll dive into two countries Bangladesh and the United States to see how both promise press freedom on paper but deliver two very different realities.
What the Laws Say: Bangladesh vs. U.S.
Bangladesh: Freedom With “Reasonable Restrictions”
Article 39 of the Constitution of Bangladesh guarantees freedom of speech and the press. But there’s a twist it comes with the clause: “subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law.”
That phrase may sound harmless, but it gives the government a wide legal doorway to restrict journalists whenever it claims reasons like “public order,” “morality,” or “state security.”
This has allowed controversial laws like the Digital Security Act (2018) to flourish. Officially, the DSA was meant to curb extremism and hate speech. In practice, it became a tool for silencing journalists and critics. Arrests without warrants, harsh jail terms, and vague wording made it easy to target dissent. Writer Mushtaq Ahmed’s death in prison under this law in 2021 remains a chilling reminder.
Although the DSA was repealed in 2023 and replaced with the Cyber Security Act, critics argue that it still carries the same restrictive spirit.
United States: The Absolutist Ideal
Now let’s cross the ocean. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says:
“Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”
This bold wording creates a very different legal culture. In the U.S., the government must carry the heavy burden of justifying any attempt to limit press freedom. Courts have consistently guarded this right, especially against prior restraint when the government tries to stop a publication before it’s printed.
The landmark Pentagon Papers case (1971) cemented this. The U.S. government tried to block The New York Times from publishing secret Vietnam War documents, but the Supreme Court said no. The Court declared that unless there’s a “grave and irreparable danger,” the press must be allowed to publish even if it embarrasses those in power.
Feature | Bangladesh | United States |
---|---|---|
Constitutional Article | Article 39 | First Amendment |
Core Wording | “Freedom of the press… subject to reasonable restrictions” | “Congress shall make no law… abridging freedom of the press” |
Guarantee Type | Qualified, with many exceptions | Presumptively absolute |
Burden of Proof | On journalists to prove restrictions are unreasonable | On government to prove restrictions are necessary |
Practical Outcome | Fear, self-censorship, arrests | A robust press that can challenge authority |
The Real-Life Struggles of U.S. Journalists
Of course, U.S. journalists don’t live in a paradise either. They face challenges but the difference is in the legal protections they have.
-
Defamation suits: Thanks to New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), public officials must prove “actual malice” (reckless disregard for truth) to win. This protects journalists from being easily sued for criticizing powerful figures.
-
Subpoenas for sources: Courts sometimes push journalists to reveal confidential sources. Some states protect them with “shield laws,” but there’s still no federal law leaving reporters vulnerable
-
National security: While the government often argues secrecy, courts rarely allow censorship before publication. The Pentagon Papers case remains the strongest shield.
-
Privacy vs. newsworthiness: Journalists must balance reporting with respecting privacy. But U.S. law usually sides with publishing information if it serves the public interest.
The U.S. struggles are often legal battles in courtrooms not jail cells. That distinction matters.
What Bangladesh Can Learn
Bangladesh’s press freedom struggles don’t come from one bad law they stem from the very framework of its Constitution. As long as “reasonable restrictions” remain the foundation, governments will keep finding ways to silence the press.
Here are two reforms that could change the game:
-
Adopt an “Actual Malice” Standard for Defamation
Public officials should only be able to sue journalists if they prove reckless disregard for truth. This would stop politically motivated lawsuits that intimidate the press. -
Introduce a Comprehensive Shield Law
Protecting journalists’ right to keep their sources secret is critical. Without it, whistleblowers and insiders won’t dare speak up.
But reforms can’t stop at laws. A truly free press in Bangladesh requires an independent judiciary and a government philosophy that sees journalists not as enemies, but as partners in democracy.
Bangladesh and the United States both enshrine press freedom in their constitutions. Yet, one sees journalists silenced by vague restrictions, while the other arms journalists with powerful legal shields against government overreach.
The lesson is clear: laws matter, but the philosophy behind them matters even more.
In Bangladesh, press freedom will only become real when the system shifts from controlling the press to empowering it. Because at the end of the day, a democracy without a free press is only democracy in name.