A Free Press Is Fundamental to a Free Nation

"Men love darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil."--John 3:19

One of the most. significant features of the U.S. Constitution is the first 10 amendments to the United States Constitution known as the Bill of Rights. It could be argued that this is one of the more profound documents it history, guaranteeing fundamental individual freedoms while limiting government power.

Throughout our history we have witnessed assaults on these various tenets that were brilliantly and thoughtfully conceived by our Founding Fathers. To our benefit these attacks have been rebuffed. 

Today I'm thinking about one of the most important freedoms: freedom of the press, a freedom that is not universally shared. 

On Sunday March 8, the NYTimes editorial board published a feature editorial titled The Free Press Is Under Threat Globally.

The editorial argues that press freedom is deteriorating around the world and warns that democracy itself is at risk if independent journalism continues to weaken as governments increasingly use arrests, lawsuits, and intimidation to silence journalists. 

Record numbers of reporters are imprisoned today, particularly in authoritarian countries, creating a chilling effect on investigative work. At the same time, digital surveillance and unresolved violence have made journalism more dangerous. The piece concludes that a free press is essential to democracy, and that the United States must defend it both at home and abroad to maintain credibility. When journalists are silenced, corruption and abuse of power flourish. Protecting independent journalism, the board argues, should be a priority for governments and citizens everywhere.

Here's an excerpt: 

At least 330 journalists worldwide were in prison at the end of 2025, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists, up from fewer than 200 a decade ago. More than a third of them were serving sentences of five years or more. Nearly half remained behind bars despite never having been formally sentenced. One-fifth say they were tortured or beaten. An additional 129 members of the press died while doing their jobs or because of them, the highest number since records began in 1992. Among the worst offenders against press freedom have been China, Russia, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Israel, Myanmar, Sudan and Turkey.

A little further the Editorial Board stated:

The press faces challenges in freer societies, too. Israel's war in Gaza led to the arrest of almost 100 Palestinian journalists, often without charge, and at least twice that number were killed over two years, a toll without modern precedent. 

This latter statement is especially disconcerting. In addition to the elimination of hospitals and medical care, the targeting of journalists is undoubtedly one of the most troubling facets of the Gaza conflict. As I read the op-ed it brought to mind a Medium post I wrote in 2020, "The Real Reason They Punish Horse Thieves." 

As George Savile, Marquis of Halifax, noted, “Men are not hanged for stealing horses, but that horses may not be stolen.” Can this be the real reason they shoot journalists in Gaza or eliminate them elsewhere? 

The Watergate affair and My Lai massacre made heroes of journalists like Woodword and Bernstein and Sy Hersh. Their work inspired others to pursue this important profession.

Not all government leaders, however, want their deeds exposed. Fraud? Thievery? Corruption? War crimes? No wonder they shoot the messengers. 

The Old Testament prophet Jeremiah stated that the heart is deceitful above above all things. Even good kings can go bad. Thus the Times board concludes that a free press is essential to democratic accountability. 

* * * * *

Read: The Real Reason They Punish Horse Thieves

Related: 

Judge Rules Pentagon Restrictions on Press Are Unconstitutional

Kenny Holston/The New York Times March 20, 2026

Comments welcome below.

The Library of John Adams

This is not Adams' library. These are from my own.

I believe it was in fourth grade that I first got hooked on biographies. Reading the stories of significant people was both educational and entertaining. Those early bios may not have had the depth that one discovers as the mature, but they were using for forming ideas about our history and human history.  

When I read David McCullough's biography of John Adams (2002) it not only displayed the man himself, but introduced readers to a whole cast of Adams' contemporaries and the major event that threw them together, our American Revolution--the subject of Ken Burns' latest documentary series, currently airing on PBS.

Something that really stood out in that Adams biography was how devoted to writing Adams was. In addition to all his correspondence--he wrote volumes to his wife Abigail when away from her--he wrote legal briefs as a lawyer and legislation as a leader. He also wrote ideas and comments in the margins of his books. One story I recall is that he wrote as many as 5,000 words in the margins of just one of his countless books. 

A voracious reader, he imported hundreds of books from London booksellers like John Stockdale throughout his life. A full collection of his papers, along with his book lists, can be found at the Massachusetts Historical Socety. His personal library (around 3,000 volumes!) is today housed in the Boston Public Library. A review of the titles reveals the scope of his interests: law, history, politics, theology, science, classical literature and poetry. Isaac Newton, David Hume, Adam Smith, Plutarch, Homer, Milton (Paradise Lost) and Edward Gibbon (Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire) reveal the breadth of his interests and thought.

One observation that stands out when I look at his library and copious notes: Leaders are Readers. 

It's been said that Adams’ London imports formed the intellectual backbone of his defense of liberty, law, and balanced government. His library wasn’t just a collection—it was a working arsenal for revolution and nation-building.

As the United States enters its 250th year, there will be much wrangling about whether the Constitution is still valid in the 21st century and whether it's time for an overhaul. We're already hearing the rumblings as some point out its weaknesses and shortcomings. On the other hand, let's be careful here. Though there may be things the founders got wrong, it's still remarkable how much they got right.

The Balance of Power Concept as Applied to Domestic Issues Today

Signing of the Constitution, Sept. 17, 1787 

As nearly all of us learned in our earliest Early American History classes, the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and other founding documents for our nation had been written primarily by a bunch of white males. White males with primarily good intentions put their lives on the line to create a nation built on the concept of Rex Lex, Latin for Law Is King, based on a document by Scottish Presbyterian Samuel Rutherford.

Lex Rex stated that The Law of God Is King, the idea here being that we have the right to exist as a nation under the jurisdiction of God's laws, not arbitrary laws based on the whims of monarchs or mobs.

Another feature of the Constitution and these early documents was the concept of limited government. One of the biggest threats to individual liberties was oppressive and intrusive big government, hence restrictions on government were set in place.

Though the ideals may have been right and good, it proved to be flawed in practice. Women, from the start, had no voice in the decisions of power. They could not vote. And slavery remained an institution that dehumanized the Negro to the extent that the Law treated slaves not as people but as property.

As for the Native peoples who inhabited this continent before our (Western caucasians) arrival, well, they certainly had no voice at the table of power.  Details of that forgotten story can be found in Dee Brown's Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee.

* * * *

Early tanks and machine-age killing machines.

This weekend I have been listening to a series of lectures by Professor Vejas Gabriel Liulevicius of the University of Tennesseee titled World War I: The "Great War". In the second lecture he lays the groundwork for the war that could be cited as the century's first great catastrophe. The ruling principle that "maintained the peace" for those many decades previous, was the notion of a Balance of Power.

Having grown up during the Cold War, I believe the idea of balance between the superpowers was something we experienced ourselves in a real way. The tension created by means of the threat of nuclear annihilation was real. The Cuban Missile Crisis certainly made it visible and films like On the Beach and Dr. Strangelove gave it a visual//emotional/psychological tactile aspect that resonated with deep-seated anxieties.

Is "perceived powerlessness" the underlying cause of our current crisis?

As Professor L. outlined the manner in which the strengthening of Germany threatened the balance of power in the years preceding the war, I could not help but believe a primary fundamental issue today is derived, in part, from an imbalance of power.

Women's Suffrage was all about giving women a voice at the table of power. The Civil War certainly upended the power structures that dehumanized blacks and kept them powerless. After the war, however, the Ku Klux Klan and later Jim Crow laws strove to keep the balance of power imbalanced. That is, no balance at all.

It takes humility to relinquish a measure of power, something uncommon in a political culture more inclined toward Machiavellian values than virtuous ones. To craft solutions will also require honesty, listening, integrity and wisdom born of dialogue, a dialogue where all voices can be heard.

This in and of itself is a challenge. Social media gives a megaphone for the loudest, drowning out much of the wisdom that resides in the quiet people who are less assertive about speaking up, sometimes for fear of being on the receiving end of a smackdown.

Gardens produce their best yields when the conditions are right. What we need is to create a culture committed to working together to produce the best solutions for all. There are a lot of good, caring people in this country, but many don't feel safe speaking out.

The problem seems mountainous. And yet, Jesus once said, “I tell you the truth, if you had faith even as small as a mustard seed, you could say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it would move. Nothing would be impossible.”

Can this really be so? Right now I am searching the pockets of my heart for that mustard seed.

* * * *