I heard about this Facebook post where Joey Lankowski, a self-described citizen journalist, was denied access to a Las Vegas Police Department press briefing because he was not recognized as a member of the press by the department. While I would have to do a lot more research before weighing in on Mr. Lankowski’s situation, it did make me think: What is Freedom of the Press?
What is the Press?
The first step in understanding Freedom of the Press is to define what is the “press”. While there are many definitions for the word “press”, in this context it can be defined as:
PRESS: The art or business of printing and publishing. A free press is a great blessing to a free people; a licentious press is a curse to society.
If press is the art or business of printing and publishing, then what does the First Amendment mean?
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.
The intention of our Founding Fathers makes sense when we put the language into context. Freedom of the Press is in a list of freedoms that can be categorized as “Freedoms of Expression”. Your freedom to exercise your religion and speak in public extends to your right to express yourself by the written word through printing and publishing. In the 20th century, this freedom has logically extended not only to non-physical expressions of the written word, such as websites and emails, but also radio and video, both over the airwaves and across the Internet.
Who defines “The Press”?
So turning back to Mr. Lankowski’s situation, let us look at the question presented by the gentlemen who said “Just because you made up your own press pass does not make you a member of the press.” Technically, he is correct; it is not the act of making or possessing a press pass that makes someone a member of the press, it is engaging in the “art or business of printing and publishing”. Since Mr. Lankowski publishes articles on his website, he is, by definition, a member of the press. Does that give him automatic access to any press conferences? No, the person giving the conference can determine who can be in the room and ask questions. Since this is an official for a public entity (the Law Vegas Police Department), then the requirements for access to the briefing has to be made by the elected representatives of the people of Las Vegas.
News Media and the Press
I’m not sure when this happened, but you may have noticed that “The Press” has been redefined in modern language to mean the news media. I believe a free and independent news media is extremely important to a free state, but a more in-depth discussion on the current state of the media in America must wait for another time. The important thing to understand here is that, contrary to popular opinion, the Constitution does not give special protections to a single group, organization, or profession. Whether you are publishing news, commentary, entertainment, or anything else, your right to do so without federal interference is protected by the First Amendment. And that brings me to a blast from the past.
S.987 — 113th Congress (2013-2014)
A BILL – To maintain the free flow of information to the public by providing conditions for the federally compelled disclosure of information by certain persons connected with the news media.
Some of you may remember the dust-up that ensued when California Senator Dianne Feinstein proposed an amendment to S,987 that would define “real reporters”. This law was an attempt by some in the Senate to define protections and processes for compelling “covered journalists” to disclose information in federal courts. Since this particular piece of legislation, and its companion bill H.R. 1962, never made it past the committee process, I won’t go into detail on its content. However, I believe there is one thing that is not only worth discussing, but remembering, as I expect to see it again soon: The federal government trying to define to whom they will give First Amendment protections.
The language of this legislation was meant to codify the practice of giving special protections to “members of the press”. Specifically, the idea was that a reporter was ethically bound to not divulge information they received without the source’s permission. We’ve all probably seen movies or television programs where the intrepid reporter is called to the stand in a court of law and asked to disclose who their source is or to reveal some other information they were asked to keep confidential. The plot usually involves the heroic reporter going to jail in an effort to defend their “journalistic integrity”, or something along those lines. One question we should ask though, is where in the Constitution does one profession receive special treatment under the law? If we define “Press” as our Founding Fathers did, then the answer is nowhere.
What is the liberty of the press? Who can give it any definition which would not leave the utmost latitude for evasion? I hold it to be impracticable; and from this I infer, that its security, whatever fine declarations may be inserted in any constitution respecting it, must altogether depend on public opinion, and on the general spirit of the people and of the government.
Sadly, Congress not only wanted to codify this practice, but determine who they would extend First Amendment freedoms to by defining the term “covered journalist”.
DEFINITION.—The term “covered journalist”—
(i) (I) means a person who—
(aa) is, or on the relevant date, was, an employee, independent contractor, or agent of an entity or service that disseminates news or information by means of newspaper; nonfiction book; wire service; news agency; news website, mobile application or other news or information service (whether distributed digitally or otherwise); news program; magazine or other periodical, whether in print, electronic, or other format; or through television or radio broadcast, multichannel video programming distributor (as such term is defined in section 602(13) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 522(13)), or motion picture for public showing;
So Congress wanted to limit what they viewed as the First Amendment protection of “Freedom of the Press” to those they saw as in the employ of the news media. Now before you say, “Those darn Democrats”, you should know that while the majority of the 27 cosponsors of S.987 were of that party, several Republicans joined as well.
Why the Hub-Bub Over a Defunct Bill and Internet Reporter?
You may think I’m picking at nits over this; I mean, since the bills died in committee, why bother? Regardless of your views on the media, political parties, or Congress as a whole, I’d like you to answer one question: Where does the government get the authority to determine who they will extend constitutionally protected freedoms? The short answer is that we’ve let them do so in the past.
You see, when we let those who represent us break the rules, ignore the laws, and get away with it, we encourage them to not only do it again, but go even farther. Because S.987 was debated with nary a whisper from the American people, a press officer in Las Vegas thinks the definition of “The Press” is a member of the corporate media. And when one of us is denied the protection of our freedom of the press, it endangers that freedom for all of us. Whether you think Mr. Lankowski should have been granted access to the press conference or not, you should ask yourself, who is The Press? Are only those like ABC, CNN, and MSNBC afforded protections for their Freedom of the Press? If governments can decide whose Freedom of the Press they will protect, what is to stop them from deciding whose Speech, Religion, Persons, and Property they will protect as well?
If we are not willing to protect the rights of others, we will soon find a day when there will be no one left to defend our rights.
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
First they came…
Pastor Martin Niemoller
