I AM A JOURNALIST. SO ARE YOU.

[DirkGently]

136. I'm interpreting specific Constitutional language to be intentional.

You're circling around the idea the language expressly providing a "free press" is filler, which we both know is nonsense.

Do you want to go back and make that argument? It's what ... redundant? Random? Purposeless?

Recognizing that a free press is a discrete right does not "invite it to be excluded" -- that logic actually is "bass-ackwards," as you put it.

A discrete guarantee of freedom of the press ensures that everyone is clear press freedom is part of the core protection of the First Amendment.

And sorry, but case law is how Constitutional freedoms are applied, so those interpretations are indicative of what Constitutional rights actually mean. We have had to sketch in what "free speech" means in many different contexts, and reduced, increased, or limited protection for various forms of expression. We have considered whether and to what extent burning crosses, stripteases, or a student's T-shirt might be speech, or might be subject to limitations, or might be unprotected altogether.

Do you think all of those cases turned out the same way because the First Amendment simply applies to everything anyone thinks it does?

If not, do you think the freedom of the press is safer being lumped in with the general concept of free speech, or named discretely in the First Amendment?