Have been mulling over this question all day and just can't come to a definitive answer. We all know that many human rights are a balance between rights of the individual and protection of society in one form or another. Clearly it's not an exact science, so i'm interested to hear what you think of this question.
If there was strong evidence to suggest that the global recession would not have happened or would have been significantly less severe were it not for the media coverage, would it be enough to justify a total news blackout on the reporting of the said recession in the future?
There will be some that will probably say they would exchange some of their human rights in exchange for financial security. They may therefore be happy for press freedoms to curtailed on the basis of the evidence.
On the other hand, they may feel that there is no situation outside of national security (in its strictest definition) that could justify any type of media blackout.
So, is the global recession so destabilising that there should be powers to limit what they report and/or how they report it?
Remember: This question is about press freedoms and human rights...not law of evidence :)