Following an historical overview of press-government relations, a summary of the current case law regarding fair trial and free press is presented. To provide background for understanding the differential application of the contempt power, the study introduces the concept of political culture and elements of the sociology of law. Study methodology is comparative legal research through document analysis. The researcher found that both England and the United States have sought to guarantee to their citizens certain fundamental rights vis-a-vis the State. Among these are the right of a person accused of a crime to the fair and impartial administration of justice and the freedom of the pres to publish news of interests to the public. While these two principles may be complementary, publicity about pending judicial proceedings carries the potential for prejudicing justice. When the potential for prejudice crosses a certain threshhold, the courts must intervene to assure a fair trial. A means of intervention common to both countries is the criminal contempt power of the courts. However, the countries' use of the contempt power differs markedly. In England contempt is the primary weapon in the arsenal of justice for guaranteeing that judicial proceedings remain fair and orderly. It may be invoked whenever there is a real risk of prejudice to the defendant or of disturbing the dignity of the court. Conversely, in the United States the primary judicial response to prejudicial publicity is the granting of a new trial to the accused. A concluding section analyzes judicial rationales to determine the social, cultural, or legal values that may have influenced current practices regarding the use of contempt in fair trial-free press situations.