What is "The Press"?

[bhsup]

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.

Got into a disagreement in fiftychat over just what the press is and how freedom of the press relates, so I figured "Hey, this would make an interesting topic." I've quoted the relevant part of the Constitution above.

(Note: For the remainder of the post, I am going to use the word 'industry' to refer to what I view as the press. Just take industry to mean a rather all-encompassing word for industry/entity/business/organization/cooperative/whatever other than just an individual acting as a private citizen.)

What I would like to discuss is just what you guys think the press is or isn't.

I think the press must be a distinct industry separate from the citizenry of the nation as a whole. The folks disagreeing with me in fiftychat were saying that everybody was protected by the freedom of the press part of the 1st. I disagree with that completely. If it were not meant to be referring to a separate industry, they would not have even needed that extra line as everything would have been covered via the "freedom of speech" provision.

I think the easiest way to get the ball rolling is just a list of who/what is and isn't The Press.

• The Times of London - Press
• The Young Turk - Not Press
• The Wichita Eagle - Press
• Time Magazine - Press
• Playboy Magazine - Not Press (yeah sure, you read the articles...)
• Company Newsletters - Not Press
• Scientific Journals - Press
• Individual Blogs - Not Press
• Tabloids - *shudder* Press

So then, just why is there a different need for "freedom of speech" and "freedom of the press"? How often do you hear about newspapers being shut down by governments outside of good ol' USA #1? All the bloody time. The individual may well still have the ability to protest and speak their mind, but with the press shut down, how does the word of those protests or speeches get disseminated to the rest of the people?

No, it is clear to me that the two rights really have nothing to do with one another, and clearly are intended for two totally separate entities. What say you all?

GROUND RULES FOR THREAD:

• This is not about Wikileaks or that loser hacker Julian Assange. Don't bring him or the organization into this. Keep things generic.
• You may not reference Supreme Court or other court decisions. This isn't about the interpretation of some dude/dudette on a bench, but whether what the Constitution says and what YOU think it means.
• Don't talk about Kansas. This really has nothing to do with the thread, but I think that's a good ground rule for most things.

 

[JollyRoger]

How about pamplets?

 

[bhsup]

Well, we discussed Thomas Paine. He wasn't the press. He's an author and he'd now be protected by freedom of speech, but he certainly wouldn't/shouldn't be considered a press industry. If you wanna consider Paine a part of 'the press' just because he wrote Common Sense, then you really must consider the Unabomber to be as well because he wrote his manifesto.

 

[Bill3000]

If it were not meant to be referring to a separate industry, they would not have even needed that extra line as everything would have been covered via the "freedom of speech" provision.

No it wouldn't. Freedom of speech covers speech, freedom of press covers publications. It's not that hard to understand.

 

[Perfection]

It's what turns apples into juice!

 

[JollyRoger]

Didn't Paine use the printing press though? And if you count him, then why not count bloggers? And is something like the Wall Street Journal Law Blog the press? How about SCOTUSBlog which reports and gives analysis and opinion on the Supreme Court and is probably a more accurate link when discussing the Supreme Courtthan linking to the online article from the NY Times or other similar source?

 

[bhsup]

No it wouldn't. Freedom of speech covers speech, freedom of press covers publications. It's not that hard to understand.

So you're saying a blind mute person trying to convey his thoughts through his SPEECH of braille writing on paper is not protected under freedom of speech? I kinda say that's BS. "Speech" covers a hell of a lot more than the spoken word.

@Jolly: I said "individual bloggers" specifically so examples such as those you gave were not considered. Also, I don't count paine, never said I did...

 

[emzie]

I think it rather depends on the blogger. If you do original reporting in the format of a blog, I think you should be considered a freelance journalist. If you're Perez, no, you're not a journalist.

 

[Bill3000]

So you're saying a blind mute person trying to convey his thoughts through his SPEECH of braille writing on paper is not protected under freedom of speech? I kinda say that's BS. "Speech" covers a hell of a lot more than the spoken word.

deaf people convey speech via sign language, fyi

 

[Tacitusitis]

Freedom of the press literally means the freedom to print. If you own a press, you can print! There are no real barriers to entry in printing except two: first, the possibility that the government might shut you down; the First Amendment protects against that. Second, media consolidation increases the cost of entering the market.

In the Revolutionary Period there was CONSIDERABLY more media diversity and a larger number of newspapers than there was at any other period of American history. Similarly at the birth of radio there was more diversity and low cost of entry.

And now we are seeing the same thing with the Internet. New unclaimed media: low cost of entry, anyone can do it, everyone DOES do it, the public sorts through everyone giving their opinions. Truthfully, Revolutionary War pamphleteers were basically print bloggers. Sure, mostly only the intelligentsia wrote and read pamphlets - who cares, it's the same with blogs.

For people who complain that bloggers have no accountability because they can post anonymously. First, that isn't true anymore, all major bloggers have come out and have known identities. Secondly, Revolutionary War pamphlets were almost all printed under pseudonyms. The Federalist Papers too.

It's very simple, bloggers are covered by the freedom of the press as much as Thomas Paine and Alexander Hamilton were. Those who deny this just don't want to deal with the consequences of a truly 1st-Amendment protected society.

 

[Skwink]

Anyone who reports information. Regularly.

 

[JollyRoger]

@Jolly: I said "individual bloggers" specifically so examples such as those you gave were not considered. Also, I don't count paine, never said I did...

But SCOTUSBlog is a collectinj of individual bloggers much the same as DailyKos is. Would you consider Kos a part of the press? How about 2 guys running a blog? Are we in the Citizens United era where you have to be an entity rather than an individual to enjoy enhanced 1st Amendment rights?

 

[Perfection]

My random stab.

The press seems to me to be the mechanisms by which we as people or entities express speech (a press is a means of widely distributing ones speech). Not only are we allowed to say whatever we want, but we are allowed to distribute what we want to say by any available means.

 

[innonimatu]

The "freedom of the press" is just the freedom of reaching out to a large number of people. Until the printing press was invented this was extremely difficult, and it took a massive organization (think "catholic church" or something like that) to disseminate ideas widely and quickly. The printing press allowed this to be done by smaller groups, even by individuals, through newspapers, books and pamphlets. The printing press and its industries were an aid to free speech, by allowing one-to-many communication in a large scale with relatively low cost. By the 18th century, free speech and free press were distinct but already indissoluble.

Now we have something called "the internet", which allows for instantaneous one-to-many communication in a planetary scale. It's just the latest step in a natural evolution which has incrementally made "free speech" more effective.
In an era where copying information is trivial (digital documents are effortlessly copied and cameras, scanners, etc, are ubiquitous), "freedom of the internet" is just the natural update to the old "freedom of the press". Any form of mass one-to-many communication is, in the 18th century sense, "the press".

 

[stormerne]

Is the press really the press? Which journals are really just mouthpieces for their owners? For example, would you really expect The Times (of London as you call it) to publish an editorial that is critical of Rupert Murdoch? If you wouldn't, then what you see in those kinds of newspapers is at least partly a reflection of their owner's financial (and therefore political) interests.

 

[Tacitusitis]

Are we in the Citizens United era where you have to be an entity rather than an individual to enjoy enhanced 1st Amendment rights?

You nailed it.

Actual people don't have rights because we only informally exist. We were never incorporated, only born!

Once you step through the looking glass and see the world their way it almost makes sense

 

[Dachs]

Freedom of the press means you don't have to wait behind the half-court line before you start playing man-on.

 

[Methos]

So you're saying a blind mute person trying to convey his thoughts

deaf people convey speech via sign language, fyi

You missed the 'blind' statement, though the thought is a rather hilarious one. "Uh, why is that blind person using sign language?'

To answer the OPs question we'd have to know how the writers defined Press and what was considered 'press' at that time. It's rather difficult to discuss their reasoning using our modern time definitions. This is a rather interesting question.

Edit: Anyone know where to find a site that lists definitions of words by era/time period? Did a quick search, but just kept getting hits on the definition of era or year.

 

[History_Buff]

I really don't see any sort of debate here. I'll first define my use of the term 'expression' as the public output in any form: speech, writing, creative dance, whatever.

'Freedom of speech' as written in the first protects the rights of expression for the individual. 'Freedom of press' represents the freedom of expression of any publishing organization (any 1 or more individuals). So I would disagree with you VRCWAgent, and say that all the things you listed in the OP were Press, except for individual bloggers.

 

[Bill3000]

You missed the 'blind' statement, though the thought is a rather hilarious one. "Uh, why is that blind person using sign language?'

Blind deaf people can use sign language like any other deaf person, and can "hear" it by feeling the signs of others.

To answer the OPs question we'd have to know how the writers defined Press and what was considered 'press' at that time. It's rather difficult to discuss their reasoning using our modern time definitions. This is a rather interesting question.

Edit: Anyone know where to find a site that lists definitions of words by era/time period? Did a quick search, but just kept getting hits on the definition of era or year.

You don't need a list of definition of words by time period. The tradition of the freedom of the press comes from America's English history. Until 1694, England had a system of licensing for publishing. No publication was allowed without the accompaniment of a government-granted license.

Fifty years earlier and later considered a significant milestone as a defense of press freedom, John Milton wrote a pamphlet named Areopagitica. Milton argued forcefully against this form of government censorship and parodied the idea, writing "when as debtors and delinquents may walk abroad without a keeper, but unoffensive books must not stir forth without a visible jailer in their title."

The term has never just referred to news media. That's anachronistic, anyway, as news media in the form people talk about (journalistic standards yadda yadda) didn't even exist back then. Newspapers were nothing more than outlets of political expression for political factions - the Federalist Papers being the most obvious example.