140 characters of Twitter vs. 45 words of the First Amendment

Yesterday, New York Times' columnist Jim Rutenberg published an article that I believe is must read material for anyone concerned with Trump's relationship with the media.

Part book preview and part expert legal analysis, Rutenberg leans on 'free speech jurisprudence titan' Floyd Abrams to explain how Trump's tweets could come back to haunt him if and when he pursues legal action against journalists or news media organizations.

As a journalism student, the following is what stood out to me most:

• The reminder that free speech takes a lot of forms; the courts affirmed that "money talks" in the Citizens United case.
• That technology has complicated who qualifies as the press. The Justice Department is considering whether to bring charges against Wikileaks, a pursuit Obama dropped after deciding the circumstances would implicate journalists across the country. While I understand this train of thought, it concerns me to see Wikileaks linked so closely to the press. For now, the lack of federal shield laws means the definition of a journalist is increasingly determined by the states based on the privileges they award and whom they award them to.
• The reminder (or revelation) that Obama was not the most first amendment-friendly president. Consider that the witch hunt against Edward Snowden is just one of nine instances where Obama has used the Espionage Act to try and punish whistleblowers...three times more attempts than all other previous administrations combined. As James Risen writes, "if Donald J. Trump decides as president to throw a whistle-blower in jail for trying to talk to a reporter, or gets the F.B.I. to spy on a journalist, he will have one man to thank for bequeathing him such expansive power: Barack Obama."
• Abrams' thinking that "Gawker would have won if it had had a chance to go higher" is problematic. The cliff notes of the case: Hulk Hogan sued Gawker for invasion of privacy for publishing a sex tape 'starring' Hogan and his friend's wife. Gawker lost the case and went broke in the process. Rutenberg mildly refers to the truth of the matter, but Abrams' prediction fails to acknowledge that the lawsuit was really just a proxy battle for billionaire Peter Thiel, who was upset at Gawker publicly outing him as gay. In response, Thiel indefinitely funneled money to Hogan's legal team until Gawker was financially tapped out. In studying the case, I it's just as reasonable to assume Gawker would've lost even with the financial means to appeal.
• Abrams specifying the Espionage Act and the serving of subpoenas to journalists as his two primary concerns. It's easy enough for the average person to understand why Trump's constant labeling of the news media as fake is troubling. But Abrams reminds us of the way in which the free press could truly suffer - imprisonment.
• The reason why Trump's tweets are a double-edged sword. "It could provide great grist for legal arguments that the investigations are less about prosecuting damaging leaks than they are about punishing journalists," says Rutenberg. "‘Enemy of the people’ would be on page one" of any defense, Mr. Abrams said, referring to Mr. Trump’s post describing reporters as such." I don't like to theorize about what could happen, but I'll take the little bit of comfort where I can get it - especially when it comes from one of the major power players in first amendment law.