“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.
True. However, Hamilton deals with it similarly (though less clearly) in Federalist 84; and besides, Hume's political philosophy was a major influence on the men who wrote the Constitution. The essential message is unchanged: "the press" is to be considered as "an institution", rather than something that applies to whatever individuals may care to write.
The distinction is very important: "the press," to the Founders, was no one individual or group; rather, it was seen as an almost abstract institution, the purpose of which was to be able to publish and disseminate contrary political views. As Hume pointed out, it was this ability to publish dissent that maintained the necessary balance between monarchy and representative government; and the same would apply to our own republican form of government. Precisely who comprises "the press" is far less important than the fact that "the press" exists at all.
An individual may be considered part of "the press" in a First Amendment case; but that does not mean that an individual must be considered that way, just because they claim it. One certainly cannot make the claim simply in order to evade the legal consequences of being accused of slander. That's exactly what this judge in this case was being asked to decide.