Shielding the press: The ongoing fight for press protections

The First Amendment should be a shield for reporters and news outlets when they are doing the job the Constitution envisioned. In most cases this is gathering facts, asking the ‘tough’ questions and publishing information of public concern. 

This has held true for nearly a century — as seen in part of our weekly reading, Grosjean v. American Press Co., Inc. But, the fight is still on. 

In November 2025, a county in rural Kansas agreed to pay $3 million and issue a public apology over the raid of a small-town weekly newspaper, The Associated Press reported. 

Search warrants were issued and used by Marion city police officers to invade the newspaper’s offices, the publisher’s home and the residence of a local city council member.

The raid, which ultimately led to a nationwide freedom-of-the-press debate, was opposed by experts, including Doug Anstaett, a retired Kansas Press Association executive director, who spoke with the AP. He said the practice violated the Kansas shield law for journalists. 

The case, making it to a negotiation stage and brought to the courts, shows that constitutional protections can fail before a court weighs in. This situation could have led to unpublished information being published or confidential sources being outed. 

Anti-SLAPP laws are also meant to protect people in the journalism industry. The statutes are intended to prevent the intimidation of journalists and news organizations.  

Recently, Illinois expanded anti-SLAPP policies and began an initiative that aims to document the wave of nuisance suits, Colombia Journalism Review wrote. 

Anti-SLAPP suits are designed to protect journalists, but fighting against the press is a widespread trend these days. Expansions like the Illinois initiative are critical in the long-term battles against silencing the press. 

Anti-SLAPP, like the rest of First Amendment law, constantly faces new challenges. It’s up to journalists to keep pushing for advancements that protect us from censorship. 

Among the ongoing struggles facing journalists is the weaponized defamation lawsuit against members of the media we read about in “The Weaponized Lawsuit Against the Media: Litigation Funding as a New Threat to Journalism.” As addressed in the document, defamation lawsuits are a modern attempt at “censorship-by-litigation.” 

Any attempt at censoring the media is a threat to the First Amendment. 

Some of the counterarguments that a plaintiff would bring to a defamation suit were discussed in the module — rights of the funder, media accountability, “maximalist litigation tactics."

Further exploration of the Bollea v. Gawker case showed that financial backing can lead to more permanent change — such as Gawker filing for bankruptcy and being sold to Univision, which has been a success and brought everlasting difference. 

When it comes down to it, anti-SLAPP laws, like the First Amendment, face constant pressure. Their effectiveness depends on continued expansion and enforcement from the news industry, as it fights against censorship.