Freedom of the Press: Are Journalists Above the Law?
Freedom of the Press: Are Journalists Above the Law? (Spoiler: Nope.)
Companion post to this week’s episode of “Knowledge is Power” — watch the video here!
What Even Is Freedom of the Press?
Picture this: you’re an investigative journalist who just uncovered a scandal so wild it makes Watergate look like a parking ticket. You publish your exposé — and suddenly, lawyers are calling, judges are demanding your notes, and someone’s trying to tax your printer ink.
So, does the First Amendment swoop in like a superhero to save you?
Or does it just shrug and say, “Good luck, kid”?
That’s the heart of freedom of the press — one of the most misunderstood clauses in the First Amendment.
It’s not just about newspapers anymore. It’s about podcasters, Substack writers, YouTubers livestreaming city council drama, and anyone shining light on power.
The Fourth Estate: The Original Influencers
When the Founders wrote the Constitution in the late 1700s, the world was buzzing with new ideas about democracy and accountability. Over in France, they talked about “four estates” — the clergy, nobility, commoners, and a new power: the press.
The “Fourth Estate” became shorthand for journalists — watchdogs of power, defenders of truth, and (sometimes) agents of chaos.
Fast-forward to today, and we’ve added a “Fifth Estate”: bloggers, YouTubers, podcasters, and everyone posting their political hot takes. The digital public square has more voices than ever — and more misinformation too.
As Taylor Swift would say: “It’s me, hi, I’m the problem, it’s me.”
Are Journalists Above the Law? Spoiler: Still Nope.
Despite the myths, the press doesn’t get a golden ticket to break the law. The Supreme Court has made that clear again and again: journalists don’t get extra rights — but they can’t be targeted either.
Rule of thumb:
🧾 No special privileges.
🚫 No special punishments.
⚖️ Equal treatment under the law.
So while the government can’t silence the press, it can still make journalists obey neutral laws — contracts, taxes, subpoenas, parking tickets included.
When the Government Pushes Too Far
Take Minneapolis Star & Tribune v. Minnesota (1983). The state tried to tax the ink and paper used by newspapers — the Supreme Court called foul. Targeting the press directly is like taxing the right to publish.
If the watchdog can’t afford to bark, democracy’s in trouble.
And in Cohen v. Cowles Media (1991), the Court reminded everyone that the First Amendment doesn’t cancel your promises. When journalists broke a confidentiality pledge, the source sued — and won.
Freedom of the press doesn’t mean “free pass for bad behavior.” It means you get to publish freely, not recklessly.
The Fight to Protect Sources
The holy grail of journalism? Protecting confidential sources.
But the Supreme Court said nope to a constitutional right in Branzburg v. Hayes (1972) — reporters can’t refuse a grand jury subpoena.
Since then, 49 states have passed their own “shield laws” to protect journalists from revealing sources. But there’s still no federal law.
That’s why names like James Risen and Catherine Herridge keep popping up in courtrooms. Congress keeps proposing a federal Free Flow of Information Act — but so far, it’s always “killed in committee.”
So yes, you can protect your sources — until someone decides you can’t.
Press Access: Transparency Gets Complicated
Can the press demand access to government spaces? Sort of — but not as a superpower.
In Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia (1980), the Court said criminal trials should generally be open to the public, because justice thrives in sunlight.
But journalists don’t have greater rights than citizens. If the public can’t walk in, neither can The New York Times.
Since 2005, that debate has evolved into digital space — livestreamed trials, Zoom hearings, and reporters fighting for access that sometimes gets shut off faster than a bad Wi-Fi connection.
Even today, the Department of Defense and White House are being criticized for limiting media access. This is especially concerning when the White House Press Secretary is as transparent as a brick wall.
Freedom of the Press in the 21st Century
The Founders never could have imagined a world where “the press” included TikTok, podcasts, and billionaire-owned conglomerates. In 1789, newspapers were barely more than pamphlets; today, media is a trillion-dollar industry — often owned by the very people it’s supposed to critique.
Since 2016, attacks on the press — calling it “fake news,” restricting access, or reshaping narratives — have tested this freedom more than ever.
When the government labels journalists “enemies” and corporations buy up major outlets, the Fourth Estate starts looking less like a watchdog and more like a lapdog.
That’s not what the First Amendment was built for.
The Balancing Act: What Press Freedom Really Means
So, back to our opening question: are journalists above the law?
Not even close.
They just can’t be singled out for punishment. The First Amendment doesn’t make the press invincible — it makes it possible.
It gives reporters the space to ask uncomfortable questions, to challenge power, and to keep democracy breathing (even if it’s wheezing a bit these days).
So next time you see a reporter standing in the rain outside a courthouse, remember — they’re not just chasing a quote. They’re exercising the freedom that keeps the rest of us informed.
If you believe in a free press:
🗞️ Subscribe to Knowledge is Power on YouTube
💬 Share this post
🗳️ And, seriously — support local journalism
Because democracy doesn’t just die in darkness; it also fades when no one is paying attention.