World War I

The Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918, which amended it, imposed restrictions on the press during wartime. The acts imposed a fine of $10,000 and up to 20 years' imprisonment for those publishing "... disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States, or the flag ..."^[11] In Schenck v. United States (1919) the Supreme Court upheld the laws, setting the "clear and present danger" standard. Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) revised the clear-and-present-danger test to the significantly less-restrictive "imminent lawless action" test.

Near v. Minnesota

The 1931 U.S. Supreme Court decision Near v. Minnesota recognized freedom of the press by roundly rejecting prior restraints on publication, a principle that applied to free speech generally in subsequent jurisprudence. The court ruled that a Minnesota law targeting publishers of malicious or scandalous newspapers violated the First Amendment (as applied through the Fourteenth Amendment).

Branzburg v. Hayes

Freedom of the press was described in 1972's Branzburg v. Hayes as "a fundamental personal right", not confined to newspapers and periodicals.^[12] In Lovell v. City of Griffin (1938),^[13] Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes defined the press as "every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion."^[14] This right has been extended to newspapers, books, plays, movies, and video games.^[15]

Associated Press v. United States

Associated Press v. United States (1945) dealt with media cooperation^[16] and consolidation. The court held that the AP violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by prohibiting the sale or proliferation of news to nonmember organizations and keeping nonmembers from joining; the AP bylaws constituted restraint of trade, and the fact that AP had not achieved a monopoly was irrelevant. The First Amendment did not excuse newspapers from the Sherman Antitrust Act. News, traded between states, counts as interstate commerce and is subject to the act. Freedom of the press from governmental interference under the First Amendment does not sanction repression of that freedom by private interests (326 U.S. 20^{[clarification needed]}). Justice Hugo Black wrote, "The First Amendment ... rests on the assumption that the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public ... Freedom to publish is guaranteed by the Constitution, but freedom to combine to keep others from publishing is not".^[17]

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan

In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), the Supreme Court ruled that when a publication involves a public figure, to support a suit for libel the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the publisher acted with actual malice: knew of the inaccuracy of the statement or acted with reckless disregard of its truth.

Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Association, Inc. v. Bresler

In 1970, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a news organization couldn't be sued over the use of "rhetorical hyperbole". The usage in question was when quoting eyewitnesses, but the court ruled that, even if it hadn't, to call it libel "would subvert the most fundamental meaning of a free press".

New York Times Co. v. United States

In 1971, the Supreme Court upheld the publication of the Pentagon Papers.

Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier

In Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988), the Supreme Court upheld the right of a school principal to review (and suppress) controversial articles in a school newspaper funded by the school and published in its name.

Stop Online Piracy Act

On October 26, 2011, the Stop Online Piracy Act, which opponents said would threaten free speech and censor the Internet, was introduced to the U.S. House of Representatives. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said that President Obama "[would] not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression."^[24] The bill was shelved in 2012 after widespread protests.^[25]

Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox

On 2014, blogger Crystal Cox accused Obsidian and Kevin D. Padrick of corrupt and fraudulent conduct. Although the court dismissed most of Cox's blog posts as opinion, it found one post to be more factual in its assertions (and, therefore, defamatory).

It was ruled for the first time,^[26][27] by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,^[28] that a blogger is entitled to the same free speech protection as a journalist and cannot be liable for defamation unless the blogger acted negligently.^[29] In the decision, journalists and bloggers are equally protected under the First Amendment^[26] because the "protections of the First Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was a trained journalist, formally affiliated with traditional news entities, engaged in conflict-of-interest disclosure, went beyond just assembling others' writings, or tried to get both sides of a story."^{[28]: 11–12 [30]}