A few years ago, a state supreme court decision was handed down that basically shredded the idea of a "freedom of the press" as it is commonly understood. Basically, the court said there is no such thing as a "free press" that is distinct from a "free citizen" in any way. So an ordinary citizen who posts regularly on blog sites or even sends frequent letters to the editor of the local newspaper is apparently considered "the press" for all intents and purposes under state law.
That's exactly the way it should be. If Jim Acosta has a legal right to a White House press pass, then so do I.
“So an ordinary citizen who posts regularly on blog sites or even sends frequent letters to the editor of the local newspaper is apparently considered “the press” for all intents and purposes under state law.”
This is true and I’ve testified in a Hudson County voter fraud case where those rights were applicable under the NJ Shield Law.
I applied that right dozens of times and the Court refused not to undermine it. That would require a separate hearing stopping the proceedings and the outcome would not have been in doubt.
In NJ, the State Constitution holds higher protections than the First Amendment. Political speech is considered at the highest rung.
SCOTUS ruled exactly the same way in 1972. Branzburg v Hays.