Replies

I was told the freedom of the press is no different than freedom of speech. It allows individuals to express themselves through publication. It does not give members of the media any special rights or privileges not given to citizens in general.

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

You are correct. Free individuals, during the founding period, sometimes formed themselves into small groups which promoted individual freedom, such as the "Committees of Correspondence."

Nowhere did America's founding generation intend that "the press" would ally itself with one political party and become one in oppressing and destroying any, or all, citizens with whom they disagreed.