Replies

"Freedom of the press" means that we all have the right to own a press or pay any provider who wishes to sell us access to a device or vehicle through which we citizens can freely publicize our ideas.
Freedom of the press is the inalienable right of the people to spend their own money propagate their own ideas.

An originalist interpretation of the Constitution would be that any device or vehicle which enables one to state and publicize one’s views is a “press,” whether it be moveable type, offset printing, TV, radio, or the Internet.

Article 1 Section 8.:
The Congress shall have power . . . To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries . . .
This provision makes clear that although the framers had no experience of electrical/electronic “media” of communication, the Constitution contemplates such advances in principle. The First Amendment references the only technical means of communication then extant but does not exclude future advances. And as

Amendment 9:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
makes plain, the First Amendment is to be understood only as a floor under our rights. Not, in any sense, a ceiling above them.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/408/665.html

United States Supreme Court
BRANZBURG v. HAYES, (1972)
No. 70-85
Argued: February 23, 1972 Decided: June 29, 1972

“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.”

White: "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.... The informative function asserted by representatives of the organized press in the present cases is also performed by lecturers, political pollsters, novelists, academic researchers, and dramatists. Almost any author may quite accurately assert that he is contributing to the flow of information to the public, that he relies on confidential sources of information, and that these sources will be silenced if he is forced to make disclosures before a grand jury.