Violations of the privacy of sources, persistent problems in granting press visas and the arrest of several journalists during anti-Bush demonstrations kept the United States (22nd) away from the top of the list..
"Arrest of several journalists during anti-Bush demonstrations" sounded weird. This kind of RSF survey result raised some doubts in my mind as to the honesty of the report.
So, I did a google search and found a copy of Denmark's Press Ethical Rules: National Code of Conduct. It seems that what the RSF survey group considers press freedom might be a little different from what Americans think freedom of speech means. In effect, the RSF survey is at best a popularity contest or reputational survey, not a scientific survey of the actual state of freedom of the press.
For example: Denmark has no First Amendment (indeed, unlike the USA, Denmark has an established chuch supported by taxes) and also has a Press Council which may require newspapers to publish articles resulting from complaints to the Press Council--sometimes on the front page...
Furthermore, unlike the United States, Denmark has legalized prior censorship of newspaper articles. In addition, Denmark's laws wouldn't seem to offer any protection to Judith Miller, since as in the USA, there is no absolute right to protect sources in a Danish criminal case:
Protection of sources
Just as the journalists´and other people´s access to information from public administrations is limited by several exceptions, journalists´ source protection is not absolute. Though, it has been improved lately.
The journalist´s professional secrecy is defined in the Administration of Justice Act where it is recognised that journalists sometimes have to protect the identity of a source during a trial. The principal rule in article 172 in the act is that mass media editorial staff cannot be obliged to pass information about sources who do not appear with their names in the medium.
However, some exceptions exist to this principal rule. In article 172, subsection 5 it is said:
"However, where the subject-matter is a serious offence and which according to the law can result in imprisonment up to four years or more, the court may direct the persons ....to give evidence, provided that due to the seriousness of the crime or to other special public or private interests the regard for the unravelling of the crime clearly outweighs the regard for the protection of the source as related to the social importance of the article or programme."
This decision was inserted in the act in 1992 after the new Media Liability Act was introduced, and after the Danish Union of Journalists, without any result, having tried to argument in favour of an absolute source protection without any exceptions.
The measures against a journalist violating article 172, subsection 5 by refusing to pass wanted information during a trial, consist of fines or imprisonment.
By every reasonable measure I can determine, the USA in fact has a freer press than Denmark.
