The key words there are "you don't believe." "The press" is not clearly defined in the First Amendment. The term must be defined in cases like this one, which hinge directly on the woman's claim to be covered by that designation.
The principles of "liberty of the press" were defined by the likes of David Hume:
If the passion of the ministers lie toward peace, our political writers breathe nothing but war and devastation, and represent the specific conduct of the government as mean and pusillanimous....As long, therefore, as the republican part of our government can maintain itself against the monarchical, it will naturally be careful to keep the press open, as of importance to its own preservation.
Hume's sense of "the press" is clearly an institutional one; we have a similar sense of the term when we acknowledge the media as the "fourth estate." Neither Hume nor the Founders considered "freedom of the press" to be license to say whatever they pleased, of course: the media are properly subject to being sued for libel and/or slander.
The First Amendment is not at all specifically dealing with “news” sources.
True -- indeed, as per Hume, the original intent was to protect political writers' right to oppose the government, as opposed to "news reporting."
As you properly pointed out, if we take the Constitution literally on the point, "the press" could only refer to printed material -- which, at the time, was the only medium available other than political speech (which is also and separately covered by the First Amendment). We don't take the term literally anymore, of course -- there are too many other media which satisfy the spirit of what Hume, et al. were talking about.
But at the same time, that very reliance of the spirit over the letter of the clause, forces judges to rule on what is, and is not, covered under the "freedom of the press" clause.
The underlying legal question in this case is straightforward: In a legal sense, what distinguishes "the press" from a gossip? There is a difference; but what are the specific criteria by which one would make the distinction?
It's not the judge's fault we're discussing "news sources" in this particular case. The defendant seems to be claiming that she is a "news source," and as such is entitled to protection of her sources on the same basis as the New York Times.
The judge, then, is required to rule on whether or not she is truly a "news source" in the First Amendment sense of the term -- or if she's merely a gossip, as the plaintiffs claim.
“As long, therefore, as the republican part of our government can maintain itself against the monarchical, it will naturally be careful to keep the press open, as of importance to its own preservation.” -—David Hume
Hume using it in this way does not define it re: the First Amendment.
I wasn’t arguing with the judge in the case, but with your seeming narrow usage and definition in your post.
If that narrowness were to catch on, it would leave many of us who do a lot of printing and distributing (outside of news and politics) in a potential vulnerable situation with regard to First amendment protections.
“The key words there are ‘you don’t believe.’ ‘The press’ is not clearly defined in the First Amendment. The term must be defined in cases like this one, which hinge directly on the woman’s claim to be covered by that designation.”
Exactly. One forms beliefs from reading words. There is nothing wrong with any one stating that they believe, or don’t believe something.
Every common citizen should be able to read the Constitution, and BELIEVE just what it says, without having a bunch of self-serving, money or fame-seeking lawyers twist those words, case-by-case, just to win their case.
Belief = TRUST. We have institutions of TRUST. We have TRUST Laws. That means someone must be able to soundly BELIEVE the words or policies of another.
I understand why nowadays these words, “I believe,” or “I don’t believe” seem to prick people so, is because they don’t have a sound belief system of the heart . . . that which was possessed by so many of the very men who penned the Constitution. And those drafters and signers who may not have had that belief system at least had deep respect for those who did. —— That belief system, by the way, was Biblicist Christianity.
And that is why I cherish and use, “I believe,” or “I don’t believe.”
Judges do the same thing in their decisions without using the words, unless you believe that no judge ever made a ruling from his own beliefe system.