What does right of free press mean exactly?

[Robert DeLong]

Actually it is freedom of the press:

Freedom of the press. The right to circulate opinions in print without censorship by the government. Americans enjoy freedom of the press under the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Hope that helps.

[Jonty30]

I know that. Free press is free thought on paper that the person can free distribute to whomever will read his work.

But some reference to show this as an intention by the Forefathers would be great. I’m arguing against a liberal, who thinks a free press means a press that is formed by a select group of people, that we call journalists. He thinks it doesn’t apply to people in general.

[Jonty30]

c’mon people, this is a test.

Don’t make me fail you in Constitution 101!

[Robert DeLong]

It clearly states:

The right to circulate opinions in print without censorship by the government.

That means anyone who has the ability to print has the right to circulate it. They do not have to have a degree in journalism or any other discipline for that matter.

History - Freedom of the Press

American free press ideals can be traced back to Cato’s Letters, a collection of essays criticizing the British political system that were published widely across pre-Revolutionary America.

The essays were written by Brits John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon. They were published under the pseudonym of Cato between 1720 and 1723. (Cato was a statesman and outspoken critic of corruption in the late Roman Republic.) The essays called out corruption and tyranny in the British government.

A generation later, Cato’s Letters frequently were quoted in newspapers in the American colonies as a source of revolutionary political ideas.

[Jonty30]

Awesome. Thank you.

[Robert DeLong]

No problem. 8>)

[NutsOnYew]

Try this:

http://www.federalistblog.us/2008/10/freedom_of_speech_and_of_the_press/

[aimhigh]

Using the arguments of the anti-gunners, we must remember that when the 1st Amendment was writte, the press only included verbal and printed opinions. Therefore, it doesn’t cover TV, Radio or Internet. /sarc/

[Robert DeLong]

BTW, to print and distribute no longer means on paper and distribute, as technology has obviously created other methods of getting one's opinion to a far larger crowd then ever realized back when the framers created our Constitution. 8>)

The method has modified, but the intention is the same, and more people actually participate.

[DesertRhino]

They think it means paid employees of a news company. But there is no constitutional definition that separates “journalist” from “citizen”.

Any citizen can become a “journalist” on any given afternoon.

[Political Junkie Too]

The Heritage Foundation on Freedom of the Press.

-PJ

[Political Junkie Too]

Somebody should mock Jim Acosta's use of the word "press" they way he mocked President Trump's use of the phrase "wire tapped."

It's highly unlikely that Acosta ever operated a press in his life.

-PJ

[DesertRhino]

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Pretty clear. The intent was to protect every method by which a citizen expresses their self and in matters of conscience.

[antidisestablishment]

“free press means a press that is formed by a select group of people, that we call journalists”

Gosh, it’s disgusting what our education indoctrination system teaches. It takes a lot of schooling to become this ignorant.

[Yosemitest]

You link provides the best information that I've read so far.

The original wording is here:

Amendment I


Congress shall make no law respecting
an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

or abridging the freedom
of speech,
or of the press;

or the right of the people peaceably
to assemble,
and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

When we look at the wording for just 'freedom of the press', this is what we get:

Congress shall make no law respecting ... or abridging the freedom .... of the press .

"Congress shall make NO law" ...
Well, that's very clear to me.

But what give Judges or Courts the right to "MAKE LAW" about "freedom of the press", either "RESPECTING" or "ABRIDGING" the right "of the press" ?

It seems to me that the Judges and the Courts do not have any right to "MAKE LAW" .

So, Trump should tell that Judge that he's out of line, and to enforce his unlawful ruling IF that judge thinks he has the power to enforce anything !

The Presidency is an EQUAL Branch of the government, and the Judicial branch was created as the WEAKEST Branch of Government.

[MrEdd]

Oh Humblegunner, a belief that you have steadfastly opposed while pretending not to (and exhibiting Marie Harf levels of logic and coherence in the failed attempt) is being articulated again.

Feel free to come and try to convince us that only the corporate press is worthy (for the umteenth time.)

[AndyTheBear]

Well I think that the founders meant that all citizens were free to use the printing press and circulate their opinions.

In the minds of Leftists it seems to mean that there is a specially ordained class of citizens who are in the "press" that have special rights that the rest of us don't have. Of course this doesn't mean all the citizens who wish to act like the press in the Leftist mindset have these rights--but only those who are essentially in their club--what they think of as the "real" journalists or "press". They would never include Jame O'Keefe for example. And heaven forbid they would include anyone from Inforwars or Rebel Media in that "club".

As usual for Leftists, the meaning the project into the Constitution is self serving and contradictory to the founder's intentions.

If the First Amendment's freedom of the press is to be expanded by the courts in any way, it should be expanded to disallow large social media platforms from denying individuals the ability to use the modern press (e.g. twitter, facebook, youtube, etc). If they are to do anything on that front, they should put limits on section 230--that essentially lets a group of like minded individuals control private citizens access to "the press" in modern terms.

[YogicCowboy]

Freedom of (the printing) press = Freedom of speech.

It is freedom to speak one’s mind without the government silencing one. It is not freedom to be heard in any particular place - certainly not the White House, which is the residence of the President and his family while in office.

What all must understand is:

Communism (so-called progressivism or liberalism or socialism), i.e., collectivism, has been overtaking the culture for a full century, at least since 1913.

Communists are elitists: That is why the Central Committee (by whatever name) live and rule like kings, while all others live in uniform (radical egalitarian) squalor.

To these de facto communists in the mainstream media:

The First Amendment is for professional, mainstream, leftwing journalists alone, not for citizen journalists of any kind;

and,

The Second Amendment is for the Federal Military, the State Militia, and the Municipal Police, not for citizen gunowners of any kind.

To these communists, the Bill of Rights are not for We The People, but for the Ruling Class Elite. Understand that and the rest makes sense - including their position on illegal aliens invading our sovereign nation and stealing from authentic citizens.

I am entirely aware that many refuse to call them communists. That is acceding to their deceit (much like accommodating Shariah). They refuse to call themselves what they are, and demand that we do not either. That is why they continually contrive new euphemisms for what they are.

I refuse to play by their rules. They are all communists to me. I refuse to call them liberals or progressives. (I allow for using the term of collectivist, or the generic term of leftist.)

The fellow travelers know they are communists. The useful idiots may or may not.

P.S.
Obamacare, via the compulsory personal mandate, is nothing less than communistic redistribution; it is not merely so-called socialism.

[GOPJ]

Journalists - the ones who get paid to write - want to limit ‘freedom of the press’ to themselves. That way they become the gatekeepers once again.

You don't have to explain anything to the jerk you're talking to - just tell him monopolies are horrible things in practice.