William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
Abstract
This Article is divided into three Parts. Part I will outline the history-in-law case for why the historical record sufficiently supports recognizing distinct constitutional press freedoms. Part II then provides a history-in-law response to some of the most common arguments made by press freedom skeptics as to why distinct constitutional press freedoms should not be recognized by the courts. Lastly, Part III makes the case for why the recognition of distinct constitutional press freedoms should become a jurisprudential reality and provides a roadmap to accomplish this.
This abstract has been taken from the authors' introduction.
Repository Citation
Patrick J. Charles and Kevin Francis O'Neill, But for a Free Press: A Response to Press Freedom Skeptics, 33 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 1073 (2025), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj/vol33/iss4/4
COinS