Press in The First Amendment by Johnathan Brooks

Wording of the Right

matthewj224 — 2018-04-03 13:41:27 UTC

“Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech or of the press.”

Meaning of the Right

matthewj224 — 2018-04-03 13:42:26 UTC

The First Amendment allows people to report on and publish “public” information without censorship from state or government. But, the amendment doesn't just do this, it also prohibits the government from doing all of the following: force journalists to state their sources, prohibit the press from attending judicial proceedings, impose taxes on the press that it doesn't on other companies, pass a law forcing press to publish, and they cant impose criminal penalties for the publication of true information, or even false information.

History of our right

johnathanb366 — 2018-04-05 13:31:06 UTC

The history of this freedom goes back to the birth of mass media. As soon as the printing press was invented, officials created ways to censor it. In 1501, Pope Alexander VI issued a notice requiring printers to submit copy to church authorities before publication, in order to prevent heresy. Penalties for bypassing the censors included fines and excommunication.

Importance of the right
The importance of having freedom of press was not to protect newspapers or reporters. It wasn't to protect the New York Times, it was made to protect the right that the people have a right to know important information so they can make informed decisions.

johnathanb366 — 2018-04-05 13:33:01 UTC

johnathanb366 — 2018-04-05 13:34:10 UTC

<-Freedom of Press has always been an issue in our society. Recently, we have treaded back to the 60's and through the movie, The Post, we have been able to look back on previous calls from our government surrounding the rights the Press has on covering some "touchy" subjects. The Post itself brought to light both the power that the President has in regard to censorship, how much the President should have, and asked the question of: "what should our press be able to talk about, where is the boundary for what a news station or a writer can talk about?"

Pivotal Point

matthewj224 — 2018-04-05 13:42:51 UTC

The experience of the Vietnam War led the U.S. government to restrict the access of reporters in combat areas in subsequent military encounters. This practice, used during the 1983 invasion of Grenada and the 1991 Persian Gulf War, was bitterly resented by many reporters. In domestic affairs, although a number of states have passed shield laws, which permit journalists to refuse to disclose confidential information and sources to law-enforcement bodies, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized no unrestricted right of press confidentiality.

Trumps Trump

johnathanb366 — 2018-04-05 13:42:51 UTC

I'm guessing you've heard about all this talk on "fake-news". Trump calls out news stations and publishers every day for releasing "fake news" that has misleading information. Two good questions that spur from this are: Should we allow new stations and publishers to have misleading information in their articles? Is it bad for society to be getting information that is a partial truth but not the whole truth? And, should Trump, should the President, be able to put out "fake-news" of his own? To Trump "fake-news" is like what I described above, things that are credible, but don't show you the whole picture. But with this description, from him I may add, he puts out "fake news" of his own. Trump is always putting out tweets or saying something without credibility behind him, his taxes for example. Should our President be able to legally do this to the people?

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan - 1964

matthewj224 — 2018-04-05 13:47:09 UTC

Was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the actual malice standard which has to be met before press reports about public officials can be considered to be libel and hence allowed free reporting of the civil rights campaigns in the southern United States.

Matal v. Tam

matthewj224 — 2018-04-05 13:54:36 UTC

This case disputes whether or not the Lanham Act prohibiting the publishing of trademarks that may be “disparaging” to people, groups of people, race, etc. is unconstitutional or not.

johnathanb366 — 2018-04-05 13:57:38 UTC