My News Literacy students at Florida Gulf Coast University are just beginning their exploration of The First Amendment, including what it protects and what it does not. I have extensive experience with the First Amendment, having led large newsrooms across the country. Still, I constantly learn new things about its strengths and vulnerabilities.
As we go through this course module, my students may see me getting quite nerdy about the importance of the First Amendment, the separation of powers, and the independence of federal agencies, but I do so proudly.
The First Amendment limits government power. It guarantees freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition from federal interference. It does not guarantee anyone a job. It does not prevent private employers from setting workplace standards. It does not require news organizations to publish every viewpoint. It protects us from government overreach.
That distinction matters.
Recently, the Editorial Board of The New York Times warned that increasing attacks on news organizations risk going beyond a constitutional limit. Strong criticism of the press is protected speech. Presidents are free to voice complaints about coverage. Public officials may point out bias if they believe it exists.
But there is a difference between criticism and coercion.
Recent examples of coercion include television network payoffs, generously called “settlements” without admitting guilt. ABC, CBS, and others are still awaiting a conclusion.
There is also a common misunderstanding about broadcast regulation. The Federal Communications Commission does not license ABC, NBC, CBS, or FOX as networks. Instead, it licenses individual television stations that operate on the public airwaves in specific markets. Some of those stations are owned by the networks; many are owned by separate companies and simply broadcast network programming.
These local stations operate under FCC rules because they use publicly allocated spectrum. That does not make the networks arms of the government. Nor does it give the federal government authority to shape or punish editorial content it dislikes.
The complexity increases when politics are involved. The Equal Time rule requires broadcast stations to give equal airtime to all qualified candidates for public office when they air a single candidate. That sounds fair in theory. However, in practice, it can discourage coverage. For example, Florida’s 19th Congressional District currently has 10 Republican and 3 Democratic candidates, and there’s still time for others to enter the race by the June 12, 2026, filing deadline. Covering one debate or candidate appearance can lead to legal obligations that are difficult to manage and risky. Stations must document, notify, and offer time to all qualified opponents.
That reality often causes stations to cover fewer candidate soundbites, not more. Equal time is more of a hassle for newsrooms with limited resources and staff. And this isn’t going to get better.
And now emerges the more troubling possibility raised by The New York Times Editorial Board: that the Federal Trade Commission could be directed to investigate speech on networks the administration disfavors.
The FTC exists to shield consumers from unfair or deceptive business practices. It is not a speech referee. It is not an editorial review board. If regulatory power meant for marketplace fairness is turned toward scrutinizing newsroom decisions or viewpoints, we shift from criticizing journalism to government overseeing journalism.
That is a constitutional red line.
The First Amendment safeguards a free press not because journalists are perfect, but because concentrated power is dangerous. The government can criticize, debate, and even mock the press. However, it is not allowed to use regulatory authority as a tool to intimidate or punish protected speech.
The danger is not disagreement. The danger is enforcement.
In a healthy democracy, the press responsibly and fairly challenges those in power. Power does not govern questions.
My students are learning that news literacy isn’t about liking the press. It’s about understanding the structure that allows free inquiry to happen. Once regulatory agencies turn into tools to pressure speech, the debate is no longer about bias or fairness.
It becomes about freedom itself.