How is it meaningful to establish a fundamental human right where freedom of press is not allow?

Answer 1

It depends, as most philosophical arguments do, on how you understand the notion of 'freedom'. Modern western society is still largely using Mill's definition of liberty (his 'liberty principle'). In this case, personal human liberty should be granted to it's fullest, unless in those cases that such liberty causes harm to another person:

"the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others".

This is the justification for the police force and the judicial system. Absolute freedom, as in 'do what you want, when you want', doesn't exist outside of the so called (by the Social Contract Theorists e.g. Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau) "State of Nature" because it is incompatible with society. Today, we would call such a state anarchy.

The way in which a liberal society tries to justify limiting the freedom of the press would be in arguing how a certain publication would, without reasonable doubt, cause harm to another.

An example would be if an accurate recipe for a home-made bomb were published in the newspapers - the amount of harm that this may cause to the well-being of others merits such a restriction in the press.

Answer 2

you are a fat a&& stinking son of a w***e who will never live to see the good things in life. May which ever god can rain c**p on you every day.

Still think we need to limit are freedom of the press..?  

We can NOT all be aloud to say what we like..There has to be a rule as to what can be put on paper and what can be said.  

This is why we can not yell FIRE in a room that is NOT on fire or all call people evil names.