The leading organizations defending the rights of journalists in the United States are called the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Freedom of the Press Foundation, and the Committee to Protect Journalists, the organization I used to run. The organization I now run is called the Journalism Protection Initiative, part of the Craig Newmark Graduate School of Journalism at the City University of New York.

What all our names collectively convey is that we are organizations of journalists that exist to defend the rights of our colleagues—that is the “press” in press freedom.

I have often been intrigued by the name of the leading press freedom group in Canada, which is called Canadian Journalists for Free Expression (CJFE). Consider for a minute what that name communicates.

In the U.S., the framing and public perception is that journalists and media institutions come together when their own rights are threatened. Their mandates are grounded in a conception of press freedom necessitating endless debates about who is a journalist, where the profession begins, and where it ends.

CJFE meanwhile says it defends “free expression and those with the courage to seek and report the truth.” Its mandate is more flexible. Its historic mission is grounded in the broader defense of speech rights, encompassing Canadians who express themselves in a variety of ways.

In the U.S., the subtext is, “We as journalists have come together to defend our rights and we invite the public to support us in this endeavor, because everyone benefits from the work that journalists do and when information circulates freely.”

In Canada, the subtext is, “The rights that guarantee the free exercise of journalism are the same ones that protect speech rights exercised by all Canadians—so when your rights are threatened, our rights are threatened. We as journalists stand with you.”

Recently, I’ve begun to wonder if that broader framework might make sense in the U.S. Instead of asking the U.S. public to stand with journalists when our rights are threatened, perhaps we as journalists and media institutions should find ways to stand with the public. This approach may have particular resonance in the U.S. at a time when the media environment is evolving rapidly and the line between journalism and other forms of expressive activity are becoming ever more blurred.

Flipping the script in this way could strengthen trust and engage the public at a time of deepening polarization. The traditional journalist’s refrain—“we are your eyes and ears” or “we are your surrogate and represent the public in places to which you don’t have access”—is less likely to resonate than “we stand with you in defending your rights.”

Second, it would better reflect the way journalism is increasingly exercised. In fact, it is often members of the public who serve as the eyes and ears of the media, providing firsthand documentation that journalists then verify, contextualize, and disseminate to a wider audience. This was apparent during Operation Metro Surge in Minneapolis in January, when reporting on police abuse, including the killing of two protesters, was based largely on cell phone footage uploaded by bystanders. While journalists have a distinct professional identity and social function, the legal framework that protects their rights while covering protests is the same one that protects the protesters themselves.

Third, this broader framing would reflect the legal reality of how journalists actually defend their rights when they go to court. For the most part, journalists do not have and do not claim any special rights. When media organizations engage in litigation to defend their rights, they usually argue that the free speech principles that protect the rights to all Americans must apply to journalists as well.

Of course, the counterarguments are also compelling. Broadening the mandate in the Canadian style could undermine the media’s perceived independence and drag it into unwanted controversies. It could erode professional solidarity and weaken funding structures, since press freedom organizations in the U.S. are often backed by the media industry and industry-aligned foundations. There are myriad practical questions. What kind of free speech cases might media and journalistic organizations take up? Who would raise their voice, the news organizations themselves or the press freedom groups that they support? What kind of interventions are appropriate? Public statements? Amicus briefs? Public policy advocacy? In fact, CJFE’s own experience is an object lesson in what can go wrong. The organization has not fully recovered from its near collapse in 2018 after the staff issued a statement condemning Israeli violence against journalists and protesters in Gaza.

But times are very different today, and so is the practice of journalism. By maintaining a strictly domestic focus—standing up for Americans exercising their First Amendment Rights—journalists and the institutions that represent them can help shift the public debate in this country away from the institutional role of the media and more toward the exercise of our collective rights. In terms of issues, media organizations might consider supporting legal efforts to defend the rights of all Americans to engage in protest, including the right to record police activity. That opportunity was brought home by a recent decision in the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals brought by a non-journalist and involving activity that was not fundamentally journalistic. Media organizations could also consider the possibility of joining efforts to defend the speech rights of non-citizens which are constitutionally protected and under assault.

A broader defense of speech rights by U.S. media institutions would recognize that the distinction between journalism and other forms of expressive activity are becoming more difficult to parse. It would align more closely with the legal reality, which is that journalists do not enjoy “special” rights and do not generally seek them. And it would reflect the obvious truth that, when it comes to freedom of expression, we are all in this together.