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.
c’mon people, this is a test.
Don’t make me fail you in Constitution 101!
http://www.federalistblog.us/2008/10/freedom_of_speech_and_of_the_press/
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/
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.
It's highly unlikely that Acosta ever operated a press in his life.
-PJ
“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.
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.)
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.
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.
This case appears to be the most succinct in defining the issue. A reporter wanted to be exempt from subpoena.
Branzburg v Hayes (1972)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/408/665
Here’s a couple of comments that stand out:
“Until now, the only testimonial privilege for unofficial witnesses that is rooted in the Federal Constitution is the Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination. We are asked to create another by interpreting the First Amendment to grant newsmen a testimonial privilege that other citizens do not enjoy. This we decline to do.”
“We are unwilling to embark the judiciary on a long and difficult journey to such an uncertain destination. The administration of a constitutional newsman’s privilege would present practical and conceptual difficulties of a high order. Sooner or later, it would be necessary to define those categories of newsmen who qualified for the privilege, a questionable procedure in light of the traditional doctrine that liberty of the press is the right of the lonely pamphleteer who uses carbon paper or a mimeograph just as much as of the large metropolitan publisher who utilizes the latest photocomposition methods.”
Freedom of the Press is not an individual freedom...it doesn’t give specific individuals special rights because they are employed by the press - else, we all have our 1st Amendment rights trod upon because we don’t have passes to attend the pressers.
The “free press” is a restriction on government - just like religious freedom and free speech restrict government power.