This story is part of Know Your News — a Granite State News Collaborative and NENPA Press Freedom Committee initiative on why the First Amendment, press freedom and local news matter.
The U.S. and New Hampshire constitutions protect press freedom. Here’s what that means: A news outlet can call out government corruption. A podcast host can share views you like — and abhor. And you can say in a Substack newsletter why you think the president, governor or any other politician is unfit for office.
The government may not like what it reads and hears, but the U.S. and New Hampshire constitutions say the press, like free speech, can’t be silenced — though government officials have tried. Attorney Greg Sullivan, president of the New England First Amendment Coalition, has represented media outlets in press freedom cases in court for nearly 50 years.
“When members of an organized press are denied access to governmental proceedings, what’s lost is the right of the people to govern themselves,” Sullivan said. “We the people are the government. We own the government. And when that’s not respected, and when governmental activity takes place in darkness, as The Washington Post (motto) points out, democracy dies.”
Think Watergate and the political corruption The Washington Post uncovered within the Nixon administration, leading Nixon to resign the presidency. But also consider the press’ right to expose local city officials who are inflating property values — and the taxes homeowners pay — or awarding friends lucrative contracts in exchange for kickbacks.
The freedom of the press and speech are not absolute. There are limited exceptions prohibiting defamation, false advertising, inciting lawlessness and threats, for example.
Ask Sullivan if he thinks press freedom is under threat and he’ll split his answer into two: At the state level, no. At the federal level, yes.
“I feel like we’re pretty lucky or fortunate here to have the support of the courts,” Sullivan said of New Hampshire, where the state’s superior courts and Supreme Court have consistently upheld press access. “And I’m not sure that’s true everywhere.”
At the national level, Sullivan pointed to President Trump’s recent lawsuits against media outlets for publishing news he does not like. Other presidents have also challenged press freedom in different ways. The Obama administration, for example, seized phone records of Associated Press reporters and used subpoenas to try to force journalists to identify confidential sources.
Trump’s approach has been different — and costly — for outlets at a time when news organizations are struggling financially.
Trump sued the Des Moines Register for its poll predicting he’d lose the 2024 election. When The Wall Street Journal published a story about Trump’s ties to Jeffrey Epstein in July, Trump sued the paper’s owner for $10 billion and banned a Journal reporter from a White House trip. (Trump also banned The Associated Press from White House press briefings for using the “Gulf of Mexico” in stories rather than Trump’s new name, “Gulf of America.”)
He sued CBS News and Paramount for what he considered favorable coverage of Kamala Harris during her 2024 bid for the presidency. And Trump targeted ABC News for saying on air that Trump had been found “liable for rape” in a civil case when the jury had found him “liable for sexual abuse.”
The lawsuits and limits on access are two threats to press freedom — and democracy — said Sullivan. But so are decisions by ABC News, CBS News and Paramount to settle with Trump for a combined $30 million. Sullivan said the “acquiescence” of those media outlets to settle with Trump rather than defend their constitutional right to press freedom can discourage other news organizations from pursuing stories the government may oppose.
“If the major news outlets are doing that, it (sets) an example (that it’s effective),” Sullivan said. “And of course, the smaller outlets don’t have the financial wherewithal to withstand lawsuits, albeit groundless lawsuits. There’s no question in my mind about that. It’s called a chilling effect.”
It’s been a different story in New Hampshire.
In 2022, the state and local police and emergency medical services repeatedly responded to calls for help at the state’s youth detention center in Manchester. It’s the same center where the abuse of children by state workers was covered up for decades.
The Union Leader filed a request with the state for multiple records, including security footage from police body cameras and the center’s surveillance cameras. The state and a superior court judge denied the request, citing the confidentiality of juvenile records.
The newspaper appealed to the state Supreme Court.
“Plagued with crisis after crisis, and chronically understaffed, (the center) was regularly relying on the State Police for the safety of its inhabitants,” the newspaper argued in its appeal. “The public has a right and a duty to know how the State Police handled the situation.”
The Union Leader prevailed in court.
Sullivan said the court’s ruling is not unique. He said New Hampshire’s courts have consistently upheld press freedom and the state’s right-to-know laws in other cases as well. It has granted access to personnel files of police officers who’ve been fired and Nashua city records related to property tax assessments.
New Hampshire’s right-to-know law — RSA 91-A — took effect Jan. 1, 1968, covering both meetings of public bodies and government records. There is no government enforcement clause in the law, but it authorizes anyone who believes the right-to-know law was violated to file suit themselves in a Superior Court.
“I’m going to say, in terms of the superior court judges in New Hampshire, and certainly the Supreme Court justices, I find the courts to be very supportive,” Sullivan said. “I’ll even use the word enlightened with respect to First Amendment rights and the public’s right to know what the government is up to.”