...kept in check by the courts. The Obama DOJ did a lot of things that conservatives and even many news organizations felt were illegal. For example, "in 2013 the Obama administration obtained the records of 20 Associated Press office phone lines and reporters’ home and cell phones, seizing them without notice, as part of an investigation into the disclosure of information about a foiled al-Qaida terrorist plot." ( https://apnews.com/article/9d9a76067d5b47e5a290dc9832369c92 )
As in most things, the Constitution leaves a lot to be desired here. Just as the Second Amendment did not define "a well regulated militia" in a way that would not just be disregarded by future courts, the First Amendment fails to define "the press" in a way that actually affords it much protection. We can assume the founders were talking about the newspapers of the day in 1791 when it was ratified, but even that could be up for debate. Do Podcasters and people that post on Social Media enjoy press protections? We really do not know.
Administrations on both sides of the aisle have used this ambiguity to go after individuals involved in press cases. The "Pentagon Papers" case of 1971 is a great example: even though the Supreme Court rejected the Nixon Administration's attempt to block newspapers from publishing the leaked material, it did not preclude prosecution of the leaker--Daniel Ellsberg. So while the press enjoys the freedom to publish without prosecution, clearly the government can use means to prosecute anyone that violates the law as they interpret it along the way.
The current SCOTUS seems to have an apatite to revisit New York Times v. Sullivan ( https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/new-york-times-co-v-sullivan/ ) which has the potential to upend freedom of the press as we understand it. This is likely where Bondi is headed with the cases she will bring.
= new reply since forum marked as read