Integrity Intercept #19
Freedom of the Press
July 3, 2025
We should be more than nominally happy – or supportive – that Free State News exists. It was born out of a simple but significant need: to give everyday people a place to write about what’s happening in their communities and across our state. If someone has something to say, they deserve a space to say it.
Over the past year, I’ve had countless people share compelling stories and important news, asking if I would consider writing it for them. And sure, I’ll gladly help – but I always ask the same question: “Why don’t you write it?”
Sometimes that question is met with a thoughtful pause or a tilted head – like maybe they hadn’t considered it before. But more often I get answers like, “Well, who would edit it?” or “How long should it be?” or “What are some pointers?” All fair questions. And the truth is: we’re here to help with all of that.
As we approach Independence Day, I want to offer a freedom reminder – and give it the historical weight it deserves.
Why was freedom of speech and freedom of the press so prominent in James Madison’s mind when the Constitution was being formed?
Because Madison understood something that still matters today: “If unrestrained majorities violate the rights of individuals. If elected officials operate free from the scrutiny of a free press…” Then everything the Founders fought for – the farmers, the tradesmen, the ministers, the revolutionaries – would be buried along with them.
A free press was vital to the survival of the American experiment. Not as a luxury, not as a political tool – but as a safeguard. It wasn’t about having perfectly written articles or pristine credentials. It was about giving people a voice and holding the powerful to account.
That’s why Free State News matters. It’s a continuation – not just of information-sharing – but of the very freedom our country was built to protect.
Few today may realize that before the Declaration of Independence was ever signed – a document my ancestor Benjamin Harrison had the honor of signing – the press in the colonies operated under strict British oversight. Newspapers and pamphlets were tightly regulated; their content watched carefully for signs of dissent.
One of the earliest and most famous challenges to that control came in 1734, in a case involving the New York Weekly Journal. On August 4, the newspaper’s publisher, John Peter Zenger, was arrested for seditious libel after printing a series of biting satirical critiques against Governor William Cosby of New York.
Zenger’s attorney admitted his client had done the printing. By the legal standards of the time, that admission alone would’ve sealed a guilty verdict. The judges – expected to side with the governor – were traditionally the ones who decided whether the content was libelous.
But in this case, the printer’s lawyer did something bold: He challenged the precedent. He argued that truth mattered – that the jury, not the judges, should determine both whether Zenger had printed the articles and whether those articles were justified. If they were based on fact, he said, Zenger should go free.
The jury agreed. After a short recess, they returned with a simple but resounding verdict: “Not guilty.”
Governor Cosby was humbled. The lawyer became a celebrated champion of liberty. And the story – told again and again – became a rallying cry for the power of the people against oppressive authority.
But did it change anything?
In the end, Zenger’s case didn’t establish a binding precedent. It didn’t rewrite the laws of libel. It didn’t redefine “freedom of the press,” and it certainly didn’t hurt Cosby’s election odds. In fact, even decades later, critics would lament that the case hadn’t shifted the landscape of liberty as much as it should have.
And yet – it left a mark.
It ignited an idea. It reminded people that truth matters, and that the voice of the people, however messy or inconvenient, deserves to be heard. The Zenger trial didn’t open the floodgates, but it cracked them just enough for a tide of freedom to gather behind it.
Satire Takes the Stage
In the years between Zenger’s trial and the Stamp Act of 1765, political satire exploded. Before the trial, the only safely printed political jokes came from the mouths of royal officials themselves. Afterward? Pamphlets, broadsides, mock speeches, parodied proclamations – all began appearing in public spaces.
The press, and the cartoonist’s quill, became instruments of resistance.
Thus, the satirists developed techniques that made it hard to prove what they were trying to say – suggestion rather than direct identification.
They used methods such as never printing the person’s full name, referring to them as “Mr. S,” for instance.
They would insinuate or celebrate the actions of others whose behavior contrasted with that of the intended target.
They also effectively employed nicknames – such as “Sleepy Joe,” “Crooked Hillary,” or “Pocahontas” – and wrote about past governments to disguise current parallels.
Sometimes, they added descriptions of animal behavior when referring to the intended figure.
George Stevens put it well: “Where law cannot extend its awe and authority, satire wields the scourge of disgrace.”
With truth disguised in humor, the press became the people’s courtroom. And the accused? Those in power who had violated community norms and needed to be pilloried – not by force, but by public conscience.
The Law Catches Up
Even though England’s Licensing Act expired in 1695, allowing more leniency in publication, post-publication prosecution for libel remained a threat. There was a desire to gauge how the public responded to information distributed. Nevertheless, Printers walked a thin line: speak boldly, and risk arrest; self-censor and bury the truth.
Eventually, American law began to recognize that a free press required stronger safeguards. We saw it in:
Near v. Minnesota (1931) – The Court struck down “prior restraint,” saying the government cannot censor a publication before it’s released, even if it contains harsh or unpopular ideas.
New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) – The Court ruled that public officials must prove actual malice to win defamation suits, ensuring press freedom wasn’t stifled by fear of litigation.
The Pentagon Papers case (1971) – When Daniel Ellsberg leaked classified information about the Vietnam War, the Court sided with the New York Times and Washington Post: the government cannot suppress truth simply because it’s inconvenient.
Each Landmark ruling stood on the shoulders of Zenger’s jury. Each affirmed that truth, spoken or written, must have a home – even if it’s messy, uncomfortable, or unpopular.
The Fire Still Burns
Ironically, we now live in an era where everyone has a press: social media, blogs, podcasts. And yet, we find ourselves frustrated:
– When posts are censored
– When engagement feels skewed
– When mob-approval buries dissent.
The same arguments echo from centuries past. What is libel? What is satire? What is dangerous speech? Who gets to decide?
The Supreme Court has said again and again: No government censor, not in advance, not before you speak.
A Final Word for the Fourth:
To Jennifer Williams, for stewarding Free State News, and to all who hold fast to liberty with courageous hearts – thank you.
But more importantly – as I write this for a July 4th reflection – I want to point out that we are celebrating a legacy rooted in courage.
Pioneers, Indigenous peoples, settlers, pilgrims, explorers, and immigrants often left behind governments that silenced the voices of those who dared to record injustice with paper and pencil. They punished the artist for sketching the off-color actions of public figures. They jailed the printer whose ink-stained hands revealed corruption, bias, greed, or theft.
It’s said that only one third of the people on this soil actively participated in the American Revolution. The British may not have been surprised by our uprising – but they were stunned by our resolve, our love of freedom, and our unyielding commitment to protect it.
Happy Fourth of July.
May we never forget what it cost – and why it still matters.
1. https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/james-madison/
2. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25057203?typeAccessWorkflow=login
3. Stevens, George Aleander. An Essay on Satire. London: G. Kearsley, 1785.
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press_in_the_United_States#thomas1847a
5. https://legaldictionary.net/near-v-minnesota/
7. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/376/254/
