Replies

The first amendment makes zero recognition of journalism. It mentions free speech, and the press. I think it simply protects the written word as well as the spoken.

There is zero justification to consider a journalist to have any protection that any other citizen does not.

Agreed, but my analysis is that “the press” was (at the time of ratification of the First Amendment, the only) technological means of promoting ideas. Already in place at the time of the composition of the First Amendment was Article 1 Section 8.: The Congress shall have power . . . To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries . . .It logically follows that the First Amendment suggests that we have a right to unregulated printing of our opinion, but also to unregulated internet posting of our opinion. (Note: we have a right equal to that of JimRob to post our own opinion on our own web site - here on FR the opinions posted are there at JimRob’s discretion and sufferance.) This analysis is buttressed by Amendment 9: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. A defining characteristic of the press, IMHO, is that running a press costs money. You can’t run a press without buying ink and paper, at a minimum. In reality you also need to pay for transportation of the output of your press. You can stand up on a soap box for free - but running a press costs money. I see “freedom . . . of the press” as being essentially an amplification of “freedom of speech.” This analysis, if agreed to by SCOTUS, would leave no room for “Campaign Finance Reform.” . . . and precious little for the FCC or the FEC.