If you publish some awful stuff, other people are allowed to point out that you said awful stuff and there are consequences for that, and that's how it's supposed to work.
You're talking about the American First Amendment specifically, not freedom of the press generally. The World Press Freedom Index includes sociocultural context and safety; if journalists are being attacked by mobs of angry citizens that is obviously a problem for the freedom of the press. To assert otherwise is ludicrous.
If you believe in "Freedom to publish without retribution", you believe in "might makes right".
What are you on about? Honestly. Violence and violent intimidation are not free speech, if violence against journalists is coming from any party other than the government, how is that not a threat to free speech simply by virtue of it coming from parties other than the government? Can you answer that without going off on wild tangents?
Reminder that I responded to a claim that only governments can threaten the freedom of the press. Do I need to explain to that non-governments are capable of murder, or do you understand at least this much?
And violation of those laws is a threat to the freedom of the press.
Let's consider a hypothetical but plausible example: A billionaire named Elon Bezos is tired of journalists exposing his illegal schemes so he hires the Pinkertons to stalk and harass journalists, dox them and post their personal information on 4chan with claims of those journalists working for the pizzagate illuminati, and threaten their friends and family with life ruination and murder. In this hypothetical everything done is illegal and none of it was done by the government; would you therefore earnestly conclude that none of it constitutes a threat to the freedom of the press? Ludicrous.
You need to stop conflating the First Amendment with freedom of the press. The First Amendment is one law that aims to protect the freedom of the press from one specific kind of threat; threats coming from the government. It does not preclude the existence of other kinds of threats to freedom of the press.
If, due to publishing an article, everyone decides to stop buying the newspaper or a subscription to the newspaper, and to stop placing ads, then that's a form of retribution/negative consequences.
Freedom of the press does not mean that people must not exercise their right of free association.
Which the government would never ruin the facade of freedom so they follow through at unofficial capacities
But good luck with a definition of freedom of the press that doesn't include when white mobs would break into black newspapers, break the presses, and burn the building down. Does freedom of the press give the government an obligation to prosecute, or nah?
Yes.
