Module 3: Blog Post No. 2

The First Amendment can be interpreted as an absolute protection for the press and media, but rulings show that this freedom is not absolute. The amendment should protect journalists and news outlets as they expose unethical and wrongful acts, or anything that significantly affects society. The media keeps individuals and government entities accountable. There are situations in which the same protections should not apply; for example, when the press intentionally uses misleading or distorted information. There is a necessity for a balance that allows the press to perform its duties without abusing its influence.  

The shift in balance between what the press can do has evolved through major cases. In Grosjean v. American Press Co. (1936), the Supreme Court ruled against a tax against critics of a Louisiana Governor. Financial pressure was used as a form of censorship, and the courts recognized this practice as unlawful and unacceptable. Silencing a critic for their opinion is a clear disregard for freedom of the press. The significance of this case was that it set the precedent for the press to question entities without fear of retaliation.

The case of New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) has had a profound influence on press freedom. The Court concluded that public officials cannot win defamation suits unless malice is proven, meaning the publisher purposely spread misinformation against the official (New York Times v. Sullivan, 1964). Journalists now had even more protections and cushioning against mistakes that could cause them to end up bankrupted by lawsuits. Investigative journalism could never exist under legal threats from those it exposes, much like trying to present unbiased news under an authoritarian regime. Of course, this kind of freedom can be used maliciously or as a loophole, as one can imagine, for dishonest media.

The First Amendment does not automatically apply to all cases regarding its protection and freedom of the press. In Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974), the Court ruled that private entities should be protected more from defamation than public officials because they did not necessarily consent or intend to have their presence/opinion public. The difference means a lot to me because if a narrative ruins a person’s reputation through misinformation, the journalist could be responsible for potentially ruining someone’s life and should be held accountable. The First Amendment should not be abused by journalists or used as a fallback to spread false narratives.

The Pentagon Papers case New York Times v. United States (1971) shows the other side. The Nixon administration tried to prevent the New York Times and Washington Post from publishing documents about the Vietnam War, citing national security reasons. The Supreme Court rejected that argument, reaffirming that prior restraint, the act of preventing the dissemination of information beforehand, is strictly limited by the First Amendment. If there were so many exceptions to the First Amendment, then “national security” could easily become a convenient excuse for any government to pursue its interests without being checked.

In the current age of media, weaponized defamation lawsuits have become much more prevalent than government censorship. As Lili Levi explains in The Weaponized Lawsuit Against the Media, the wealthy and corporations increasingly use lawsuits to intimidate or silence journalists (Levi, 2017). These lawsuits don’t necessarily aim for a total victory, but they’re exhausting for reporters who may not want to risk the financial burden of legal costs and negative backlash. The more recent Palin v. New York Times case is an example of this burden. Even though Palin lost the case, the process itself proved to other outlets that critical reporting can still lead to drawn-out litigation and negative sentiment, which is entirely unattractive to encounter.

Anti-SLAPP statutes (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) are necessary because these laws allow defendants to dismiss lawsuits meant to silence reporting/speech on issues of public interest (Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, n.d.). A much-needed modern upgrade to existing laws to grant the press more breathing room to work. Anti-SLAPP protections are not always consistent. These laws are still not complete because their effectiveness depends on the location of the reporter, so there is still much more room for their improvement and implementation at a federal level. Of course, these same laws that protect the press should also be reasonable and not permit intentional false reporting or personal lash-outs disguised as journalism. A reporter who creates information to harm someone’s reputation erodes trust in media, which many people already consider biased. Brenan (2025) reports that the trust Americans have in mass media has fallen to a record low of 28%. Protecting bad reporting is a negative image for all the press.

Overall, the First Amendment should serve as a protection for accurate, accountable, and transparently motivated reporting, not for reckless headlines meant to drive up engagement. It’s also clear that modern threats to journalism: legal, financial, and reputational, can be disguised as other motives and don’t always look like traditional censorship. From defamation suits to the algorithmic suppression of smaller news outlets, there is a pressing need for new solutions in this increasingly complex digital environment. The press remains a foundation of democracy because it forces authority to be transparent to the public. If the press were to be silenced overnight, truth becomes optional and compliance expected.

References

Brenan, M. (2025, October 2). Trust in media at new low of 28% in U.S. Gallup. https://news.gallup.com/poll/695762/trust-media-new-low.aspx

Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974).

Levi, L. (2017). The weaponized lawsuit against the media: Litigation funding as a new threat to journalism. University of Miami School of Law. Retrieved from https://repository.law.miami.edu/fac_articles/713/

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).

Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. (n.d.). Understanding anti-SLAPP laws and overview of anti-SLAPP laws. Retrieved from https://www.rcfp.org/resources/anti-slapp-laws/