A Free Press Cannot Exist Under Threat of Government Retaliation
The founding fathers wanted to make sure that people and publishers could disagree with the King’s version of events without punishment or censorship. That’s why the First Amendment promises free speech and a free press.
Government leaders who dislike a news story are, of course, free to speak out. What they are not free to do is use the power of their office to punish or censor those who publish news that contradicts or questions their policies. They are not free to strip a broadcaster of its license to operate.
Yet, that is what the administration threatens over reporting on the war in Iran.
“Broadcasters . . . are running hoaxes and news distortions,” Federal Communications Commissioner Brendan Carr complained on social media over the weekend.
“The law is clear. Broadcasters must operate in the public interest, and they will lose their licenses if they do not,” Carr wrote.
He correctly quotes the law. Those who use the airwaves are required to serve the public in a way that newspapers are not. But serving the public does not mean adhering to the administration’s narrative.
Where Carr goes wrong is in confusing the public interest with the administration’s interests. Those interests often diverge, even conflict, which is exactly why we have a First Amendment.
“The press was to serve the governed, not the governors,” Supreme Court Associate Justice Hugo Black wrote in the Pentagon Papers case in 1971. Exposing government deception is “paramount” during time of war, he said, when citizens are called to fight on foreign soil.
That was Vietnam, not Iran, and times were different. But the core mission of the First Amendment has not changed. Then, as now, and as the founders knew in the 18th century, newsrooms, whether print or broadcast, must be free to resist government intimidation without fear of being silenced.
Additional Statements
Federal judges say they’re facing intensified threats since start of Trump’s second term
“Things have gotten so much more dangerous,” a federal judge said in an interview with POLITICO. “I think we are headed in the wrong direction.” GLRL is gravely concerned with the increased threats against judges and the Rule of Law. Judges must be allowed to do their...
Can Jay Clayton 2.O Be Trusted to Stand Up to the President?
The Jay Clayton who chaired the Securities and Exchange Commission would make a perfect Director of National Intelligence (DNI). Jay, who was my boss at the SEC, was someone who pulled no punches and always spoke the truth. Those are crucial qualities for the vital...
The Warning Lights Are Flashing for November’s Elections
Signs that the Trump administration plans to interfere with the midterm elections in November abound. His primetime speech last month sounded the alarm, alleging Chinese meddling, droves of foreigners registering to vote, and an election system perilously vulnerable...
A Threat to the Midterm Elections
There are a few words in Article I of the Constitution that you probably never paid attention to but could be tremendously important in the midterm elections. I became aware of them last year while writing Stealing Elections, American Style. One of the chapters in...
Join Us
We are building a coalition of Georgia attorneys who are committed to the Rule of Law. Please fill out the form if you would like to be part of our initiative to preserve the Rule of Law.
Contact Us
Do you have questions or need to speak with GLRL? Email info@georgialawyersfortheruleoflaw.org, and we'll get back to you as soon as we are able.