freedom of press. preemptive censorship.

The privileges of the Prince and the elite are protected in so many ways.  Here is one  example of  preemptive censorship that is now part of  the the Kingdom's  Law. Can we still talk about  Freedom of  the Press. with any real  honesty?

The Prince of Wales's letters to ministers must be kept secret because their contents would "seriously damage" his future role as king were they made public, Britain's attorney-general has ruled.

Dominic Grieve moved to avert a constitutional crisis by blocking the release of 27 letters containing "particularly frank" views that could cast doubt on the Prince's political neutrality.

Last month three judges ruled there was an overwhelming public interest in releasing the letters, sent by the Prince to seven departments in Tony Blair's government, to shine a light on the way the heir to the throne lobbied ministers on a weekly basis.

Advertisement

Mr Grieve overturned their decision, saying there was an "exceptional case" for him to use his veto to prevent the Prince's "most deeply held and personal beliefs" becoming public.

The Freedom of Information Act was amended in 2010 to give the heir to the throne exemption from all future requests. Clarence House declined to comment on Mr Grieve's decision, but royal aides said the Prince had always held the opinion that it was "central to his role as heir that he can communicate privately with public officials".

http://www.smh.com.au/world/prince-charless-frank-views-kept-under-wraps-20121017-27q33.html




And from an American Royal comes this beauty.

   The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

     But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security

  It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world's efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.

     And so it is to the printing press--to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news--that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.

.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article32747.htm