Posted on 01/31/2020 6:28:09 AM PST by Kaslin
For many decades of our modern era, it's been an article of faith that our Founders enshrined the profession of journalism into the “freedom of the press” clause of the Bill of Rights. That understanding is wrong.
It’s clear from the dictionaries of the day, as well as the writings of the Founders and other authors of the era, that what this First Amendment freedom refers to is the printing press, the device which made the wide dissemination of written speech possible, and which was the target of censorship and confiscation efforts by British authorities, both before and after the signing of our Declaration of Independence. Nowhere were journalists denoted. That meaning slipped into the language only well into the 19th century, decades after the Bill of Rights was written, and never as a primary definition.
Samuel Johnson, who many consider the most distinguished man of letters in English history, authored what would be for well over a century the authoritative English lexicon. The first edition of his classic A Dictionary of the English Language, printed in 1755, shows the pertinent definitions for the noun “press” as 1. The instrument by which any thing is crushed or squeezed. 2. The instrument by which books are printed [italics added]. The sixth edition, published in 1785 and in use during the formation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, adds wine and cider presses. No mention of journalists or newsmen.
The Oxford English Dictionary, first published late in the 19th century, cites the first reference of “press” to journalists and newspaper reporters collectively as not occurring until 1868.
James Madison, the author of the Bill of Rights, wrote in his Report on the Virginia Resolutions that “… no persons or presses are in the habit of more unrestrained animadversions on the proceedings and functionaries of the State governments than the persons and presses most zealous in vindicating the act of Congress …” [italics added] Madison, as well as all the founders, understood “press” or “presses” as machines, not as a profession, institution or industry.
In 1789, the same year that the Bill of Rights was submitted by Congress to the States, David Ramsay, a major historian of the revolutionary era, wrote, “in establishing American independence, the pen and press had merit equal to that of the sword,” clearly equating the two instruments as physical devices.
The Kentucky Constitution of 1799, states, “ printing-presses shall be free to every person who undertakes to examine the proceedings of the legislature or any branch of government, and no law shall ever be made to restrain the right thereof.”
Noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary says of press as a noun, 1. An instrument or machine by which any body is squeezed, crushed or forced into a more compact form; as a wine-press, cider-press or cheese-press. 2. A machine for printing; a printing-press. Press as the art or business of printing is mentioned in the third definition, but no reference to journalists or newsmen is to be found. At the end of the listing he further states that “Liberty of the press in civil policy, is the free right of publishing books, pamphlets or papers without previous restraint …”
Previous or prior restraint was the press freedom issue of the 1760s and ‘70s. Attempts at censorship and seizure were made, both in the colonies and in Britain. The Stamp Act of 1765 sought to restrict printed materials, including newspapers, by requiring them to be printed on revenue-stamped paper produced in London. The levy had to be paid in British, not colonial currency and gave rise to the revolutionary phrase, “no taxation without representation,” as the colonies had no members in parliament.
One near-victim was Isaiah Thomas, another early American historian, author, printer and publisher of the Massachusetts Spy, a weekly paper supporting independence. Some consider Thomas the foremost printer in colonial America. As such, he was a target of the British. They considered Thomas so dangerous that he later recalled “he had the honor of being included with John Hancock and Samuel Adams in a list of twelve persons who were to be summarily executed when taken.” Three days before the Battles of Lexington and Concord in April of 1775, Thomas fled Boston with his presses and a few sets of type and set up shop in Worcester, Mass. All his other property was destroyed or stolen during the British occupation of Boston. Other printers and pamphleteers had been fanning the flames of revolution to the point that the Brits sought to terminate their press freedoms as well.
The establishment media “press” of today has arrogated to itself a freedom belonging to all Americans and has used that theft to elevate itself to constitutionally protected status. The implications of this error are profound: those preening and self-righteous media elitists have no more rights or privileges under the Constitution than any other citizen and merit no special consideration from any other American, including elected officials. The same crowd which perpetrates fake news on us has perpetuated a fake meme about their own existence. It’s not quite stolen valor, but it’s at least stolen position, authority and reputation.
President Trump has taken an appropriate step by cutting off access to propaganda purveyors from CNN and NPR. He should replace them and others with more writers from web-based publications which have track records of getting the story right, the Washington Post and New York Times be damned. Likewise, other elected officials from governors and senators on down ought to follow suit. The current lying media has gotten literally an undeserved pass for far too long. It should be payback time.
Let the griping begin!
And therefore the 2nd refers only to muskets, not AR-15s, right? Still having coffee, perhaps I read this wrong?
But Auras, Penumbras and Emanations -APEs for short.
That's like saying Freedom of speech is restricted to only that which can be spoken through a microphone.
It simply means Freedom of the spoken and the written word.
Well, using progressives’/leftists’ logic against them — If 2A is only for muskets, then 1A is only for printing presses. No electronics may be involved in creating, sending or printing articles. Okey doke?
Benjamin Franklin's thoughts on freedom of the press, from the same linked thread:
Here is an older post of mine that expresses my thoughts on that.
I think the notion that "freedom of the press" refers to the trade of journalism is incorrect. Usage of the phrase "the press" to refer to newspapermen didn't originate until the early 1900s.The origins of the first amendment reference to "freedom of the press" literally refers to the machine, the printing press.
All the rights of individuals in the first amendment should be taken together as different sides of the same concept:
- "abridging the freedom of speech" quite literally meant speech as far as crowds of people could hear you. It's the proverbial person standing on a soapbox in the town square shouting his opinions to others.
- "the right of the people to peaceably assemble" means literally to stand together and hear a speaker speak. During colonial British rule, a group of people seen together in public would be suspected as being conspirators against the Crown. Free speech does no good if the People aren't allowed to congregate to hear you.
- "freedom of the press" meant the right of anyone to publish. Spoken word only traveled as far as one could hear it. Printing one's thoughts and distributing them across the colonies extended the reach of thought, and therefore, its influence.
- "the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances" meant using the freedoms of speech, press, and assembly to call out when the federal government exceeded its Constitutional authority.
"Journalism," or "the press" as they like to refer to themselves, is an amalgam of these rights. It's an industry that uses free speech and free press to report on the activities of government through the way government interacts with and impacts the people, as well as reporting on the assemblies of people with each other.
But ultimately, freedom of the press is the peoples' right to publish, not the Washington Post's right to special protections. If this judge is saying that the Washington Post has a right to publish innuendo and smear, then we ALL do.
Follow-up thoughts with links:
The origin of the term "the press" to refer to periodicals and journalism generally (see also the so-called Fourth Estate) didn't begin until the 1800s. The usage in reference specifically to reporters and journalists collectively didn't begin until the early 1900s.At the time of the Framers of the Constitution, "the press" meant the printing press, and "freedom of the press" meant the right of citizens to publish, sharing their thoughts, opinions, and beliefs beyond the range of simple speech in a town square. Many examples of this were "citizen journalists," journaling the goings on in their communities, and sharing opinions on them with the other colonies.
"Freedom of the press" was meant to ban the federal government from stopping Americans from mass communicating, not to enshrine a special class of "journalists" as watchdogs over the government. All citizens were watchdogs, just as we do here on Free Republic.
-PJ
What's interesting in Franklin's original piece is that the "court" he is referring to is the so-called court of public opinion.The "press" is not a class of journalists as it is known today; it was the citizen journalist who had something to say. Quoting Franklin:
In whose favor and for whose emolument this court is established. In favor of about one citizen in 500, who by education, or practice in scribbling, has acquired a tolerable stile as to grammar and construction so as to bear printing; or who is possessed of a press and a few types. This 500th part of the citizens have the privilege of accusing and abusing the other 499 parts, at their pleasure; or they may hire out their pens and press to others for that purpose...It is not by any Commission from the Supreme Executive Council, who might previously judge of the abilities, integrity, knowledge, &c. of the persons to be appointed to this great trust, of deciding upon the characters and good fame of the citizens; for this court is above that council, and may accuse, judge, and condemn it, at pleasure. Nor is it hereditary, as in the court of dernier resort, in the peerage of England. But any man who can procure pen, ink, and paper, with a press, and a huge pair of BLACKING balls, may commissionate himself: And his court is immediately established in the plenary possession and exercise of its rights.
I did not take my own argument seriously but only made it to illustrate the absurdity in their argument against the 2nd amendment. I am assuming that the author here intended to convey the same point.
I think the point the author was making was that the PRESS is a thing, not a person. It is the medium of communication, not an individual endowed with special authority to communicate.
Only means they’re not accountable for any lies or distortions or fake news.
Fun concept! Let the effacement begin....
Yes, the author means “Journalist” as equal to “Freedom of the Press” is incorrect. The “Press” was used for any means of mass produced written communication to include newpapers/broadsheets and books.
Thus the current attempt by “Journalists” to say they, as a profession, are separately protected by the 1st Amendment is wrong. There was no intent to define the profession of journalism as sacred - only the right to print and disperse the printed word by ANYONE.
As I posted, what you're missing is that the right is not the right to own a printing press, per se, it is the right to publish. Today, it would include blogging as a citizen-journalist.
Along the same lines, we could say that the second amendment is literally only the right to own a gun, but it is really the right of the people to organize for the common defense and protection of their rights from tyranny.
The right to publish is also the right to forewarn others of a growing threat of tyranny.
-PJ
There are more than a few members of our media serving in exactly the same role as did Streicher.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.