AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |
Back to Blog
![]() The net result has been, ironically, fewer constitutional press rights rather than more. These over-inclusive definitions have failed because they attempt to transfer our constitutionally overprotective approach to the Speech Clause to the Press Clause. The primary roadblock to recognizing independent meaning in the Press Clause is the definitional problem - who or what is the “press”? Others have attempted to define the press, but the ubiquitous instinct toward constitutional overprotection has resulted in overly broad definitions that include potentially everyone. Recently in the Court’s Citizens United decision, Justices Stevens and Scalia reignited the 30-year-old debate over whether the Press Clause has any function separate from the Speech Clause. While recognizing the structural and expressive importance of a free press, the Supreme Court has never recognized explicitly any right or protection as emanating solely from the Press Clause. The Free Press Clause enjoys less practical significance than almost any other constitutional provision. ![]()
0 Comments
Read More
Leave a Reply. |