Also known as: liberties of the press · freedom of the press
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A constitutional protection against government interference with publication or newsgathering activities. The protection bars prior restraints and most content-based restrictions on the press while imposing the same testimonial obligations on journalists as on other citizens in good-faith criminal investigations.
Logan Lane published articles exposing bribery in local courts based on conversations with a court clerk. A federal grand jury investigating the bribes subpoenaed Lane to identify the clerk and describe their conversations. Lane moved to quash, claiming the First Amendment shielded confidential sources. The court denied the motion because the subpoena arose from a good-faith investigation and imposed no special exemption for the press.
Leah Lamb obtained internal government documents showing failed defense programs and prepared a series of articles. The Department of Defense sought an injunction claiming publication would harm national security. The court refused the injunction because the government could not meet the heavy burden required to justify a prior restraint on the press.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Luis Lopez, a city council member, sued a newspaper after it published an advertisement accusing him of misconduct in office. Lopez offered no evidence that the paper knew the statements were false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. The court dismissed the suit because a public official must prove actual malice to recover for defamation.
Laura Lewis, a private attorney, sued a magazine that falsely accused her of belonging to a subversive organization. Lewis proved the statements were false and negligent but offered no evidence of actual malice. The court allowed recovery of actual damages because a private plaintiff need only show negligence when the matter is one of public concern.
Leo Lynch, editor of a newsletter on reproductive rights, published information about available services. A state statute criminalized such publications. Lynch challenged the statute as violating liberty of the press. The court struck down the law because it directly restricted protected speech on a matter of public concern without sufficient justification.
Lucas Lee, a reporter for a local paper, was excluded from portions of a high-profile murder trial. The trial judge cited general concerns about publicity without specific findings of overriding need. Lee challenged the closure. The court held the exclusion improper because the First Amendment guarantees public and press access to criminal trials absent narrowly tailored findings.
No. The First Amendment does not create a constitutional reporter's privilege that allows journalists to withhold testimony or confidential sources from a good-faith grand jury investigation. Reporters remain subject to the same duty to provide relevant evidence as other citizens.
Supporting sources
A public official must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defamatory statement was made with actual malice, meaning knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth.
Supporting sources
No. The First Amendment guarantees public and press access to criminal trials. Closure requires specific findings of an overriding interest and narrow tailoring to that interest.
No. A private plaintiff need only prove negligence to recover actual damages when the matter is one of public concern, though proof of actual malice is required for presumed or punitive damages.
Supporting sources
…of public men, of every description, which has not been confined to the strict limits of the common law. On this footing the freedom of the press has stood; on this foundation it yet stands . . . ." 4 Elliot's Debates, supra, p. 570. The right of free public discussion of the stewardship of public officials was thus, in Madison's…