Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Yeah, you're wrong here.  Again.
You're free to speak and free to report as the press.  And you're provided time to do so.  But you're not going to allow money/ratings to bastardize it.  The only reason media outets are so different at reporting the same things is to get more eyeballs. 
You're free to use your money to produce the news.  To inform.  Without dollars, you have to EARN eyeballs by providing the best coverage, not that we'd keep track of who gets the most viewers anyway.

Don't laugh it only incourages him

I mean, it was said by a supreme court justice? Who I think might've walked it back to a degree.

Anyway, its meaning is kinda murky and has a bad history.

Schenck v. United States
In a series of opinions surrounding the World War I Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918, he held that the freedom of expression guaranteed by federal and state constitutions simply declared a common-law privilege for speech and the press, even when those expressions caused injury, but that privilege would be defeated by a showing of malice, or intent to do harm. Holmes came to write three unanimous opinions for the Supreme Court that arose from prosecutions under the 1917 Espionage Act because in an earlier case, Baltzer v. United States, he had circulated a powerfully expressed dissent, when the majority had voted to uphold a conviction of immigrant socialists, who had circulated a petition criticizing the draft. Apparently learning that he was likely to publish this dissent, the Government (perhaps alerted by Justice Louis D. Brandeis, newly appointed by President Woodrow Wilson) abandoned the case, and it was dismissed by the Court. The Chief Justice then asked Holmes to write opinions in which they could be unanimous, upholding convictions in three similar cases, where there were jury findings that speeches or leaflets were published with an intent to obstruct the draft, a crime under the 1917 law. Although there was no evidence that the attempts had succeeded, Holmes held for a unanimous Court that an attempt, purely by language, could be prosecuted in cases where the expression, in the circumstances in which it was uttered, posed a "clear and present danger" of causing some harm that the legislature had properly forbidden. In Schenck v. United States, Holmes announced this doctrine for a unanimous Court, famously declaring that the First Amendment could not be understood to provide an absolute right, and would not protect a person "falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic." Although much criticized, Schenck remains an important precedent, and still governs cases in which expressions are intended to cause harm, or threaten to cause imminent lawless action.[24]

Abrams v. United States
Later that year, however, in Abrams v. United States, Holmes was again in dissent. The Wilson Administration was vigorously prosecuting those suspected of sympathies with the recent Russian Revolution, as well as opponents of the war against Germany. The defendants in this case were socialists and anarchists, recent immigrants from Russia who opposed the apparent efforts of the United States to intervene in the Russian Civil War. They were charged with violations of the 1918 amendments to the Espionage Act which were known as the Sedition Act of 1918, and which purported to make criticisms of the government and the war effort a crime. Abrams and his co-defendants were charged with distributing leaflets that in Yiddish called for a "general strike" to protest the US intervention in Russia. A majority of the Court voted to uphold the convictions and sentences of ten and twenty years, to be followed by deportation. Holmes was moved to dissent. The majority claimed to be following the precedents already set in Schenck and the companion cases in which Holmes had written for the Court, but Holmes insisted that the defendants' leaflets neither threatened to cause any harm, nor showed the specific intent to hinder the war effort. Holmes condemned the Wilson Administration's prosecution, and its insistence on draconian sentences for the defendants in passionate language: "Even if I am technically wrong [regarding the defendants' intent] and enough can be squeezed from these poor and puny anonymities to turn the color of legal litmus paper ... the most nominal punishment seems to be all that possibly could be inflicted, unless the defendants are to be made to suffer, not for what the indictment alleges, but for the creed that they avow ..." Holmes then went on to explain the importance of freedom of thought in a democracy:

Quote

[W]hen men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe ... that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes can safely be carried out. That, at any rate, is the theory of Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment.

In writing this dissent, Holmes may have been influenced by Zechariah Chafee's article "Freedom of Speech in War Time".[25][26] Chafee had criticized Holmes's opinion in Schenck for failing to express in more detail and more clearly the common-law doctrines upon which he relied. In his Abrams dissent, Holmes did elaborate somewhat on the decision in Schenck, roughly along the lines that Chafee had suggested. Although Holmes evidently believed that he was adhering to his own precedent, some later commentators accused Holmes of inconsistency, even of seeking to curry favor with his young admirers.[27] In Abrams, the majority opinion did rely on the clear-and-present-danger formulation of Schenck, claiming that the leaflets showed the necessary intent, and ignoring the point that they were unlikely to have any effect. In later opinions, the Supreme Court departed from this line of reasoning where the validity of a statute was in question, adopting the principle that a legislature could properly declare that some forms of speech posed a clear and present danger, regardless of the circumstances in which they were uttered. Holmes continued to dissent.

Yeah, you're wrong here.  Again.
You're free to speak and free to report as the press.  And you're provided time to do so.  But you're not going to allow money/ratings to bastardize it.  The only reason media outets are so different at reporting the same things is to get more eyeballs. 
You're free to use your money to produce the news.  To inform.  Without dollars, you have to EARN eyeballs by providing the best coverage, not that we'd keep track of who gets the most viewers anyway.

Citizens United allowed unlimited money into political campaigns.  I'm against that.  (see Coch bros)

Citizens United allowed unlimited money into political campaigns.  I'm against that.  (see Coch bros)