You would think so but some future authoritarian or paternalistic government might disagree. Maybe the government will say that a newspaper should not report on the poorly built bridge that collapsed and killed some people. News of disasters (or death in any form) might be considered two sensitive for children to accidentally be exposed to through a newspaper.
A great argument for why the bloated executive powers should be clawed back by Congress. But not a strong argument for why Congress should stay hands-off.
Also, if something like that happens, that's a blatant 1st Amendment violation and will be enjoined as fast as the case can run up the judiciary. Today's SCOTUS is very 1st-Amendment-friendly (to the chagrin and delight of various flavors of both left and right).
HN has 'user-submitted content' which tends to be one of the categories that these laws target. Newspapers can also run stories on disturbing events that can also fall under these laws. They are often incredibly broadly defined such that it's easier to describe what they don't cover.