Decoded by Danielle

I think that we can all agree that in today’s political and media environment, the First Amendment is in a sort of limbo state; it’s still considered powerful, however, it’s starting to show its fragile elements as well. The goal of the First Amendment is to protect journalists from being censored, especially censored from the government, and to hold those powers accountable. They are like the eyes and ears of the citizens and when they’re challenged through defamation lawsuits, their protections are challenged. The problems that we’ve faced since the inception of the First Amendment is highlighted in our readings this week. The readings really highlight that accountability and freedom of speech/expression are oftentimes contrasting, making the courts debate the line that divides the two. 

Like I mentioned above, the goal of the First Amendment is to protect reporters, especially when their stories and work serves to bring information to light to the citizens and general public. In the readings this week, The Grosjean v. American Press Co., highlights when the Supreme Court struck down a law in Louisiana that was designed to suppress and penalize newspapers that were critical of the government. This case was one of the earliest establishers of freedom of speech/expression/press that protected against censorship, setting a precedent for our current protections, today. Especially in today’s political landscape, this case reminds all of us of what the function of the First Amendment was created to do; protect journalists from government censorship. 

One of the most well-known First Amendment cases is the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan case, which we also read about this week. This is probably the most famous case in regards to free speech since it revolutionized defamation law as we know it today. This is where “actual malice” was introduced and standardized and ruled that public officials weren’t able to receive damages for claims of defamation unless actual malice could be proven. Again, this case ruling solidified the idea that in a democratic society, the press is free to criticize the government and/or those in power. Prior to this ruling, journalists and reporters were scared of litigation, and their voices were therefore somewhat silenced for fear of retaliation. 

Of course, over the years these cases have been met with challenging interpretations both in the eyes of the court and public opinion, where boundaries have shifted organically over time, as seen in the Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc. case. In this case, the court separated public and private figures, saying that private figures no longer need to meet “actual malice” to prove defamation. The goal of this ruling was to try to find a middle ground between free speech/expression and protecting reputations. The thing is, this ruling made it easier for people to be more aggressive in their quest for favorable litigation and this is why so many cases make their way to the courts today. 

I hold tight on my stance that the First Amendment should be protected and always aim to protect media outlets, their work and reporters, especially when the work that they are doing serves the citizens and is of public interest. One of the readings from this week that has me concerned is The Weaponized Lawsuit Against the Media because I feel like this is how journalists are silenced and information is suppressed. Cases like this jeopardize a free and fair press by using the legal system as a means to suppress information. This exposes the vulnerabilities of journalists, oftentimes leaving them helpless and voiceless. 

To combat this, I think that anti-SLAPP laws are critical.  Laws that protect journalists, like those explained in the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. Understanding anti-SLAPP laws, help protect journalists, the media and everyday citizens from retaliatory litigation because of what they say and/or write. It’s a mandatory safeguard that helps to keep our democracy healthy and thriving. Without the First Amendment and its protections, the government and people in power wouldn’t be held accountable and our democracy as we know it would begin to shatter.