Fourpatterns of ytolent actid@ against media and kbdr personnel-peronal~aa& tmzjorltarian, anxigmup, and discourse and cbanging dejEnttiOrts of a cuhm o f tbe Boundaries to public discourse are often set by law and enforced by the state. Because they can be traced through records of legislation and police and judicial action, such limits have been studied extensively (59,89,93,94). But the apparent clarity of these limits is misleading. Boundaries that seem strict on paper may be loosely controlled. Laws are often ignored or are established in terrorem: to intimidate potential offenders, not to punish existing ones (112); and the state is often powerless to enforce laws (92). Nor is the absence of written law unambiguous. There are other, less formal agencies of regulation: not the state but the marketplace ( 4 , 20); not the courts but professional ideologies (30,39,103), political influence (6), and, in extreme cases, the mob. With so many other mechanisms of control, the law can afford to be permissive.Historically, boundaries to public utterance through the media have been set, explained, and justified by what we might call the culture of the press. This culture might best be conceived as a series of congruent layers of different but overlapping ideas and populations, from theorists to press professionals and insiders to the public, each with its own version of the culture of the press suited to its own situations and interests.How can we recover the culture of the press? Articulations of ideas are useful but insufficient; what people have said or written tells us some but not all of what they have believed, and key phrases like "the liberty of the press" or "the people's right to know" have been used variously and opportunistically. Furthermore, articulate statements are weighted toward theorists at the expense of the public, who are much less likely to write down what they think about the media.In highly literate milieus the assumption is unquestioned that sign$cant communication is conveyed by word, and above all by printed word. Yet one i?lcWV-bf?@ us locate tbe boundia&s OfpUbHcOne also might gauge ideas by practice. As Rhys Isaac has noted,