Since 1931, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated repeatedly that government attempts to censor the media are presumed unconstitutional. Accordingly, editorial decisions about publication of information the government deems sensitive are generally left solely to the discretion of media organizations. Here, the CFTC did not satisfy the Nebraska Press Association test. It did not show the district court that the licensing scheme at issue here justifies burdening the plaintiffs' fundamental right to report on matters of public concern. It did not show the district court that other statutory provisions concerning fraud that do not require the licensing of publishers could not alleviate the perceived potential harm resulting from the unregulated freedom to publish.
Specialized publishers possess the same First Amendment rights as their larger media counterparts.
The First Amendment protects the right of all publishers to be free from prior restraints on publication. The liberty of the press is not confined to newspapers and periodicals. . . . The press in its historic connotation comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion. The majority recognized, however, that the statute would have operated as a prior restraint if the newsletter had fallen outside of the statutory exception. The entire Lowe Court agreed that First Amendment protections apply with equal force to large media entities and small publications specializing in the dissemination of information about particular industries or markets, which is a conclusion to which numerous other courts that have considered the issue have come.