JuraProf about the press in the USA: “Our legal framework reassures me”

Taz: The Trump government attacks the freedom of the press in the United States on several fronts. How solid are legal guarantees?

Russell Miller: I am still very confident in a legal basis to protect the freedom of the press. I do not want to change the topic, but in a sense, unrealistic problems for the press are much more threatened. There is a fragmentation of the media because social networks play an increasingly important role and more concentration among media owners. There is also a general distrust. In our system, we even have almost a culture of hostility to the media. And the legal system cannot do a lot against this socio -cultural erosion.

TAZ: Nevertheless, the system needs legal fences. Quite good, it seems, the first additional article about the Constitution in which freedom of speech is corrected.

Miller: Exactly. The first constitutional dependence is devoted to what we call “preliminary restraint”. It goes back to the American revolution. Before that, the king appreciated what was allowed to publish, and provided licenses for a certain content. Prior to this, the Constitution offers constantly fixed protection.

Taz: Can this principle apply the Associated Press to the case, whose journalists Trump banned the oval office because they refused to accept the term “golf America”?

Miller: If you imagine this in such a way that the exclusion of a journalist from the press pool does not allow her to report a certain message, this may affect this protection against censorship and a “preceding rest”. An equally important doctrine of the first constitutional additive is the “frightening doctrine”. The thought standing behind this: politics does not adhere to the reporting of one journalist and, therefore, at first glance looks neutral. But she scares a possible speaker, makes her think: will there be what I want to do, have legal consequences? There are also several recent cases that do not depend on the first constitutional addition, but on the fifth, which guarantees the rule of law.

TAZ: What is an example.

Miller: I think about CNN V Trump in 2018. Jim Jim Acosta was thrown out of the White House because he asked unpleasant questions, after which the court ordered his access to be restored. Not so much from the first constitutional addition, but also from this concept of the Constitution in our constitution, which states that the state should not act arbitrarily or from hostility. When we are talking about Trump’s government attempts to exclude journalists, this legal structure is convincing and reassuring me.

TAZ: Another government tactics are to attack the media with expensive judicial claims. There is a solution in this matter “New York Times V Sullivan since 1964, in which the Supreme Court greatly limited the right of officials to complain about slander. However, there is a fear that a new decision can cancel or water this precedent.

Miller: The judgment “Nyt V Sullivan” is very clear. This was used repeatedly. This is the cornerstone of our jurisprudence. And just as priority works here in the United States, the solution should be mandatory forever. However, a large new study shows that the Supreme Court has a new understanding of how much priority should be. We have repeatedly seen important decisions in which the court canceled the established precedents. The decision of Dobbs canceled the ROE V WADE and canceled the right to interrupt.

TAZ: Where do you see the need to improve the legal system?

Miller: I would like to see the right to receive news. For example, a mixture of the first constitutional addition and the right to the law, which states that, as a journalist, one should not prevent the collecting information, report and use my right to freedom of expression. I would like to see a stronger foundation.