Freedom of the Press: A Pillar of Democracy

Trump Administration Wants to Control Your Narrative

By Ben Cable (Citizen Ben)

From the very moment America declared its independence, the press was viewed not as a luxury but as a bulwark against tyranny. In 1791, the First Amendment enshrined “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” That simple clause has undergirded an astonishing diversity of journalism: from the fiery pamphleteers of the Revolutionary era to today’s digital newsrooms.

“A free press is not a privilege but an organic necessity in a great society.” - Justice Hugo Black

One of the earliest Supreme Court affirmations came in Near v. Minnesota (1931). Minnesota had tried to silence a small newspaper it deemed “malicious.” Still, the Court struck down the statute as an unconstitutional prior restraint — a government attempt to censor publication before it occurs. This case cemented the principle that Americans enjoy a robust protection against government-imposed censorship.

Over the decades, the Supreme Court has repeatedly sided with newspapers and broadcasters when government power threatened to muzzle them:

• New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964)
  In this instance, a public official sued The New York Times for libel over an advertisement that contained factual inaccuracies. The Court held that public figures must prove “actual malice” (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth) to win defamation damages. This high bar has allowed vigorous criticism of public officials without fear of crippling lawsuits.

• New York Times Co. v. United States (the “Pentagon Papers” case, 1971)
  When the Nixon administration sought to block publication of classified documents revealing hidden histories of the Vietnam War, the Times and Washington Post fought back. In a landmark 6–3 decision, the Court ruled that prior restraint was presumptively unconstitutional, and the government failed to meet the “heavy burden” of proof needed to justify censorship. This victory underscored that even matters of national security rarely trump the public’s right to know.

• Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart (1976)
  A trial judge barred the press from publishing details of a brutal murder to protect the defendant’s fair trial rights. The Supreme Court unanimously held that the “gag order” was an unconstitutional prior restraint, reaffirming that press scrutiny of criminal proceedings must be protected unless extreme circumstances demand otherwise.

These decisions illustrate how the Court has served as a guardian of press freedom, ensuring that powerful institutions cannot silence critical voices.

Last month (April 25, 2025), the Washington Post published an article regarding Attorney General Pam Bondi’s decision to reverse a Biden-era policy of not investigating journalists' sources, often whistleblowers.