Yeah, I think you got me. My interpretation of freedom of the press is not the interpretation of freedom of the press taken by the US courts in general, from what I’m reading. They say it basically just means the right to write down what you are saying. That interpretation seems nuts to me for two reasons:
- That is covered in it’s entirety by freedom of expression, meaning “freedom of the press” is interpreted as a redundant, empty phrase - which is presumably why it isn’t mentioned in the UN declaration of human rights
- The amendment says, “and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable” - it is plainly talking about the freedom of the news media and is in direct response to the British clamping down on American newspapers
Just another place where I think the US courts are weird (though this weirdness has been going on a long time, it’s not from 2010).
But regardless, my point that the government can always go after corporations by changing laws government corporations (including simply defining some corporations out of existences) stands. I wouldn’t be impressed* if the Trump administration used legal machinations to annihilate the New York Times, but unless freedom of the press is interpreted as freedom of the news media, I wouldn’t think they had a first amendment case against it. The first amendment can’t right all wrongs, and I feel like trying to make it right all wrongs leads to this nonsense whether corporations get the rights of people but not the responsibilities of people (i.e. they can’t be charged with murder).
I don’t think anything is lost by “taking away” human rights from corporations and I think a lot is gained.
* Understatement
