President Donald Trump. Credit: The White House

More than 300 newspapers across the country published editorials Thursday defending the freedom of the press against attacks by President Donald Trump.

The Boston Globe, which initiated the effort, said in its editorial, “This relentless assault on the free press has dangerous consequences.” Trump promptly tweeted that the Globe was in “collusion with other newspapers on free press.” He subsequently tweeted he wants “true” freedom of the press:

Last year, Trump stated: “It's frankly disgusting the press is able to write whatever they want to write. People should look into it.”

The Globe's editorial quoted Thomas Jefferson who once said, “Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.”

In recognition of this campaign, below are some of the statements U.S. Supreme Court justices have made in landmark decisions about the importance of a free press. News media organizations have not won every press-related case through history, but in the last 100 years, more or less, the court has usually embraced the press and speech clauses of the First Amendment.

➤➤ Even scandal mongers are immune. “The administration of government has become more complex, the opportunities for malfeasance and corruption have multiplied, crime has grown to most serious proportions, and the danger of its protection by unfaithful officials and of the impairment of the fundamental security of life and property by criminal alliances and official neglect, emphasizes the primary need of a vigilant and courageous press, especially in great cities. The fact that the liberty of the press may be abused by miscreant purveyors of scandal does not make any the less necessary the immunity of the press from previous restraint in dealing with official misconduct.” —Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes in Near v. Minnesota, 1931

➤➤ Maximum freedom. “The free press has been a mighty catalyst in awakening public interest in governmental affairs, exposing corruption among public officers and employees and generally informing the citizenry of public events and occurrences, including court proceedings. While maximum freedom must be allowed the press in carrying on this important function in a democratic society, its exercise must necessarily be subject to the maintenance of absolute fairness in the judicial process.” —Justice Tom Clark in Estes v. Texas, 1965

➤➤ Uninhibited, robust and wide-open. “[W]e consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials … Erroneous statement is inevitable in free debate, and … must be protected if the freedoms of expression are to have the 'breathing space' that they need … to survive.” —Justice William Brennan Jr. in New York Times v. Sullivan, 1964

➤➤ Founders wanted an unrestrained press. “Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell. In my view, far from deserving condemnation for their courageous reporting, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and other newspapers should be commended for serving the purpose that the Founding Fathers saw so clearly.” —Justice Hugo Black in New York Times v. United States, 1971

➤➤ Reporters remain free to seek news. “We do not question the significance of free speech, press or assembly to the country's welfare. Nor is it suggested that news gathering does not qualify for First Amendment protection; without some protection for seeking out the news, freedom of the press could be eviscerated. But these cases involve no intrusions upon speech or assembly, no prior restraint or restriction on what the press may publish, and no express or implied command that the press publish what it prefers to withhold. … The use of confidential sources by the press is not forbidden or restricted; reporters remain free to seek news from any source by means within the law.” —Justice Byron White in Branzburg v. Hayes, 1972

 

Read more:

Sessions on LGBT Ruling: Judges Must Have 'Read the New York Times'

From 'Honest Man' to 'Scared Stiff': All of Trump's Tweets Dishing on Jeff Sessions

Lawyers Say Trump Would Be 'Laughed Out of Court' in Lawsuit to Block Book

How ABA's Unease Over Trump Article Hatched a First Amendment Flap