Why does the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantee freedom of speech and freedom of the press?
In the 1971 cases of New York Times v. U.S, and in U.S. v Washington Post [the “Pentagon Papers cases”], the U.S Government sought injunctive relief to stop the Times and Post from publishing the contents of a classified study. entitled “History of U.S. Decision-Making Process on Viet Nam Policy.”
Six of the nine justices wrote their own concurring opinions in which, as the majority, they ruled against the Government’s request for a “prior restraint” [an injunction allowing censorship]. Four of the six-judges hesitated to say that a “prior restraint” could never be imposed. Mr. Justice Black believed, however, that when The Constitution says “Congress shall make no law,” “no law” means “no law.” I cite the Black and Douglas concurrences because they tell us most succinctly why the First Amendment guarantees “freedom of the press.”
Mr. Justice Black wrote,
“When the Constitution was adopted, many people strongly opposed it because the document contained no Bill of Rights to safeguard certain basic freedoms.
“They especially feared that the new powers granted to a central government might be interpreted to permit the government to curtail freedom of religion, press, assembly, and speech.
"In response to an overwhelming public clamor, James Madison offered a series of amendments to satisfy citizens that these great liberties would remain safe and beyond the power of government to abridge.
“Madison proposed what later became the First Amendment …
“The Bill of Rights changed the original Constitution into a new charter under which no branch of government could abridge the people's freedoms of press, speech, religion, and assembly.
“Madison and the other Framers of the First Amendment … wrote in language they earnestly believed could never be misunderstood: 'Congress shall make no law * * * abridging the freedom * * * of the press * * *.'
“In the First Amendment, the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors.
“The Government's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people.
“Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell.
“The New York Times, the Washington Post … should be commended for serving the purpose that the Founding Fathers saw so clearly. In revealing the workings of government that led to the Vietnam war, the newspapers nobly did precisely that which the Founders hoped and trusted they would do.”
Mr. Justice Douglas wrote,
“The dominant purpose of the First Amendment was to prohibit the widespread practice of governmental suppression of embarrassing information. It is common knowledge that the First Amendment was adopted against the widespread use of the common law of seditious libel to punish the dissemination of material that is embarrassing to the powers-that-be…
“Secrecy in government is fundamentally anti-democratic, perpetuating bureaucratic errors. Open debate and discussion of public issues are vital to our national health. On public questions there should be 'uninhibited, robust, and wide-open' debate….”
Justice Douglas, however, was also concerned with a press that acted inconsistently with its reason for having been granted such freedom.
“The fact that the liberty of the press may be abused … does not make any the less necessary the immunity of the press from previous restraint ….”
So, if (a) “paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people,” and (b) “the dominant purpose of the First Amendment was to prohibit the widespread practice of governmental suppression of embarrassing information,” what happens when the press joins in “government deception?” In suppressing “embarrassing information?”
On Thursday, July 28, 2022, The GDP numbers showed a “second consecutive quarter of negative growth.” That is the traditional definition of “a recession.” Nevertheless, the Washington Post headlined, “U.S. economy shrinks again in second quarter, reviving recession fears,” parroting White House talking points.
Do the “two consecutive quarters of negative growth” equal a “recession,” or merely “revive fears” thereof?
The White House argues, and the Post echoes, “the declaration of a “recession” must instead come from The National Bureau of Economic Research.” “This “two consecutive quarters” declaration only comes instead from the Bureau of Economic Analysis.”
But since 1948, the last ten times we have had of “two consecutive quarters of negative growth” and “recessions” as per the BEAs analysis, the NBER subsequently confirmed that indeed all ten periods were “recessions!”
So, when the Post obfuscates the issue to protect the Administration, how is that consistent with the reason for having a free press?
Why not a headline reading, “Country slides into recession, but it may be mild.” Followed by an article explaining the term “recession” and stating why this one’s likely to be mild?
Why not put truth and credibility over partisanship?
