(2 of 2)
Explaining that his comments were intended to "raise some questions likely to arise in this area in the future," the Chief Justice gave an unusually forthright exposition of his philosophy of the First Amendment. The press, Burger declared, has no greater right to free speech than anyone else. Though the First Amendment prohibits Congress from "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press," he continued, the words "freedom of the press" add nothing fundamental to the words "freedom of speech." Burger found no evidence that the framers of the Constitution intended "special" or "institutional" safeguards for the press. He further maintained that "media conglomerates" were becoming indistinguishable from other large corporations by branching out into businesses unrelated to news dissemination. He specifically cited pulp mills (as in the case of the New York Times, among others) and pulp timberlands (as in the case of Time Inc., among others). In a somewhat gratuitous swipe that he admitted was of no constitutional relevance, he noted that media conglomerates are no more "virtuous, wise or restrained in the exercise of corporate power" than any other corporation.
Basically, Burger seemed to be saying two things: that media conglomerates are corporations and if they enjoy free speech, so should any other corporation; and that there is no basis to the argument that news organizations should enjoy "special and extraordinary privileges or status" under the First Amendment.
Many journalists would readily concede Burger's point that the press possesses no special corner on virtue, wisdom or restraint. But he also maintains that a corporation whose principal and openly stated business is publishing news is guaranteed no more protection than any other corporation. Many newsmen−and some constitutional lawyers−would surely dispute that point. ∎
* The decision will also affect laws prohibiting or limiting corporate spending on ballot issues in perhaps as many as 17 states besides Massachusetts.