With the situation of our nation as of September 11th, the relevance of examining this issue becomes evident. .
In the United States, freedom of the press and the broader freedom of speech by the First Amendment to the Constitution and are considered fundamental rights of the people. In practice, though, some kinds of speech and publication are considered outside the amendment's purview, and others, like commercial speech receive a reduced level of protection. In addition, broadcasters are subject to government licensing requirements. The protections to be afforded users of on-line computer services, the Internet, and other new means of publication are the focus of a developing debate; in 1996 a federal district court panel struck down the new Communications Decency Act, holding that Internet communications were entitled to the same degree of protection as printed communications.
Historically, restriction of the press has occurred in two ways. The first may be either censorship or mandatory licensing by the government in advance of publication; the second is punishment for printed material, especially that considered by the government to be seditious libel, or, material that may "excite disaffection against constituted authority." .
Censorship. It's a word people want to avoid when regarding the freedom that the First Amendment gives. This ugly word means that there is removal of material from public viewing or the ability to withhold any material from being released. At its core this is what the First Amendment seems to want to protect against, especially when it comes to the press. One of the most famous instances regarding the boundaries of press freedom is the case of the Pentagon Papers.
"No recent Supreme Court case better illustrates the potential conflict between the essentials of press freedom and national security than that of the Pentagon Papers." (http://uscongress.