3 ms·

That's equivocation. Not the same meaning of the word "press".

dragonwriter 9y ago
It actually is; freedom of the press is the exact same thing as freedom of speech applied to printed matter (it is called out distinctly because historical unwelcome written material, especially when mass distributed as the printing press enabled, was frequently considered more problematic by government and so printing was often tightly regulated even where speech, per se, was less so.) It is not, despite a fairly popular misconception encouraged by institutional media, a concept of special rights for a particular industry or class of occupations.
- ithilglin909 9y ago
  I agree that the idea of the "freedom the of the press" is derived from the right to free speech. But "press" as in a printing press is a machine, while "press" as in "freedom of the press" refers to people who work for news media or news media collectively. Those are not the same thing, regardless of what wu-ikkyu thinks.
  - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
    The printing press was the only form of news media in existence in 1789, hence why it was more commonly called "the press" back then, rather than "the media" as it is today. It was only later in the 1900's that the definition of "the press" was extended by the courts to cover new media like the radio https://www.livescience.com/21312-freedom-of-the-press.html https://www.livescience.com/21312-freedom-of-the-press.html
    - ithilglin909 9y ago
      Correct -- in so far as it's relevant to this discussion, that supports my point. I'm really not sure what you're trying to say.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > The printing press was the only form of news media No, it wasn't. Criers existed. More to the point, though, presses were and are used by more than the news media, and freedom of the press applies to those wishing to use the press whether or not it was in the context of news media. The news media wasn't the focus of the original freedom, nor is it the correct generalization to new technology (which would be more “freedom to use mechanisms to reproduce and distribute expressions”.)
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    No, again, it's the actual machine. Historically, printing and publication were regulated (often with licensing requirements to even set one up) over and above speech [0], so “freedom of speech” did not adequately communicate the right to use a printing press to prepare ideas for distribution. “The press” in “freedom of the press” is, literally, the printing press (and, by implication, it's necessary paraphernalia, including paper for printing, type, etc.), not the news media or the people working in it. [0] e.g., https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licensing_of_the_Press_Act_1662 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licensing_of_the_Press_Act_1...

It actually is; freedom of the press is the exact same thing as freedom of speech applied to printed matter (it is called out distinctly because historical unwelcome written material, especially when mass distributed as the printing press enabled, was frequently considered more problematic by government and so printing was often tightly regulated even where speech, per se, was less so.) It is not, despite a fairly popular misconception encouraged by institutional media, a concept of special rights for a particular industry or class of occupations.

ithilglin909 9y ago
I agree that the idea of the "freedom the of the press" is derived from the right to free speech. But "press" as in a printing press is a machine, while "press" as in "freedom of the press" refers to people who work for news media or news media collectively. Those are not the same thing, regardless of what wu-ikkyu thinks.
- wu-ikkyu 9y ago
  The printing press was the only form of news media in existence in 1789, hence why it was more commonly called "the press" back then, rather than "the media" as it is today. It was only later in the 1900's that the definition of "the press" was extended by the courts to cover new media like the radio https://www.livescience.com/21312-freedom-of-the-press.html https://www.livescience.com/21312-freedom-of-the-press.html
  - ithilglin909 9y ago
    Correct -- in so far as it's relevant to this discussion, that supports my point. I'm really not sure what you're trying to say.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > The printing press was the only form of news media No, it wasn't. Criers existed. More to the point, though, presses were and are used by more than the news media, and freedom of the press applies to those wishing to use the press whether or not it was in the context of news media. The news media wasn't the focus of the original freedom, nor is it the correct generalization to new technology (which would be more “freedom to use mechanisms to reproduce and distribute expressions”.)
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  No, again, it's the actual machine. Historically, printing and publication were regulated (often with licensing requirements to even set one up) over and above speech [0], so “freedom of speech” did not adequately communicate the right to use a printing press to prepare ideas for distribution. “The press” in “freedom of the press” is, literally, the printing press (and, by implication, it's necessary paraphernalia, including paper for printing, type, etc.), not the news media or the people working in it. [0] e.g., https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licensing_of_the_Press_Act_1662 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licensing_of_the_Press_Act_1...