Realizing that the new United States was too large a country for direct democracy, James Madison, in the Federalist Papers, proposed that the Founding Fathers create a republic as the government for the new country. As Madison noted, in a republican form of government, the people of the country delegate their Sovereign Power in periodic elections to individuals who would represent the people who had elected them in the government. Fundamental to this form of government is a well-informed electorate, not just during times of elections, but during the time in office of the elected representatives, to insure that the people's will is being done.

"The very idea of a government, republican in form, implies a right on the part of its citizens to meet peaceably for consultation in respect to public affairs and to petition for a redress of grievances." United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 552 (1876) cited in 211 US 78 (1908) Twining v. State of New Jersey.

211 US 78 (1908) Twining v. State of New Jersey, page 106:

" . . . . it must not be forgotten that in a free representative government nothing is more fundamental than the right of the people, through their appointed servants, to govern themselves in accordance with their own will, except so far as they have restrained themselves by constitutional limits specifically established, and that, in our peculiar dual form of government, nothing is more fundamental than the full power of the state to order its own affairs and govern its own people, except so far as the Federal Constitution, expressly or by fair implication, has withdrawn that power."

Because representative government is based upon the periodic election of representatives to our government by a well-informed electorate, the continued existence of representative government in the United States rests upon this relationship between a well-informed people and their elected representatives. Problems arising in the country must be quickly known to the people and understood by them, just as internal and external dangers to country must be recognized early on so the people and their legislature can take timely action. This is why Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press are absolutely essential to the continuation of our representative government.

This is also why the Supreme Court has defined the Freedom of Speech and the Freedom of the Press as cognate rights -- you cannot have the one without the other. This is why the Founding Fathers incorporated Freedom of the Press in the Freedom of Speech clause in the Constitution and this is why the Supreme Court had held in several decisions that the Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press are not only cognate rights, they are Fundamental PERSONAL rights. This means each American citizen must have the right to speak freely, and they must also have the right to receive free speech through a free and uncensored press.

472 US 489 (1985) McDonald v. Smith. "The Speech and Press Clauses, every bit as much as the Petition Clause, were included in the First Amendment to ensure the growth and preservation of democratic self-governance. A citizen who criticizes a public official is shielded by the Speech and Press Clauses because "[i]t is as much his duty to criticize as it is the official's duty to administer." New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S., at 282 (emphasis added). "[S]peech concerning public affairs is more than self-expression; it is the essence of self-government." Garrison v. Louisiana, supra, at 74-75."

"The Framers envisioned the rights of speech, press, assembly, and petitioning as interrelated components of the public's exercise of its sovereign authority."As Representative James Madison observed during the House of Representatives' consideration of the First Amendment:

…."The right of freedom of speech is secured; the liberty of the press is

….expressly declared to be beyond the reach of this Government; the

….people may therefore publicly address their representatives, may

….privately advise them, or declare their sentiments by petition to the

….whole body; in all these ways they may communicate their will." 1

….Annals of Cong. 738 (1789) (emphasis added).

The Court previously has emphasized the essential unity of the First

Amendment's guarantees:

…."It was not by accident or coincidence that the rights to freedom in

….speech and press were coupled in a single guaranty with the rights of ….the people peaceably to assemble and to petition for redress of

…. grievances. All these, though not identical, are inseparable. They are ….cognate rights, . . . and therefore are united in the First Article's ….assurance." Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S 516, page 530 (1945).

{472 US 489 (1985) McDonald v. Smith, pages 489-490]