Glad the free speech folks are in charge
-
When the WH spokesman says 'we're holding you accountable for speech we don't like' the first amendment is implicated.
@jon-nyc said in Glad the free speech folks are in charge:
When the WH spokesman says 'we're holding you accountable for speech we don't like' the first amendment is implicated.
In context, obviously that accountability is limited to access to the WH briefing room, and the first amendment is not implicated unless you're motivated to squint.
Education is extremely important.
-
The AP is an international news provider and its an international body of water. Only one country refers to it as 'Gulf of America', which is even a minority of those that touch its shores. Not to mention the rest of the world.
If Cuba hand changed the name to 'Gulf of Fidel' would AP holding out be like a child holding their breath?
@jon-nyc said in Glad the free speech folks are in charge:
The AP is an international news provider and its an international body of water. Only one country refers to it as 'Gulf of America', which is even a minority of those that touch its shores. Not to mention the rest of the world.
If Cuba hand changed the name to 'Gulf of Fidel' would AP holding out be like a child holding their breath?
Fair enough, you could make a case that the AP stories are not for an American audience. The practical truth of the audience that reads these stories would probably work against that claim, but the theoretical claim could still be made.
-
When the WH spokesman says 'we're holding you accountable for speech we don't like' the first amendment is implicated.
@jon-nyc said in Glad the free speech folks are in charge:
When the WH spokesman says 'we're holding you accountable for speech we don't like' the first amendment is implicated.
Compelled speech... you wonder what Jordan Peterson is thinking right now.
-
@jon-nyc said in Glad the free speech folks are in charge:
When the WH spokesman says 'we're holding you accountable for speech we don't like' the first amendment is implicated.
In context, obviously that accountability is limited to access to the WH briefing room, and the first amendment is not implicated unless you're motivated to squint.
@Horace said in Glad the free speech folks are in charge:
@jon-nyc said in Glad the free speech folks are in charge:
When the WH spokesman says 'we're holding you accountable for speech we don't like' the first amendment is implicated.
In context, obviously that accountability is limited to access to the WH briefing room, and the first amendment is not implicated unless you're motivated to squint.
FIRE disagrees with you. Maybe it'll get litigated, but I doubt it, as AP realizes they'll just get punished in some other way.
-
@Horace said in Glad the free speech folks are in charge:
@jon-nyc said in Glad the free speech folks are in charge:
When the WH spokesman says 'we're holding you accountable for speech we don't like' the first amendment is implicated.
In context, obviously that accountability is limited to access to the WH briefing room, and the first amendment is not implicated unless you're motivated to squint.
FIRE disagrees with you. Maybe it'll get litigated, but I doubt it, as AP realizes they'll just get punished in some other way.
@jon-nyc said in Glad the free speech folks are in charge:
@Horace said in Glad the free speech folks are in charge:
@jon-nyc said in Glad the free speech folks are in charge:
When the WH spokesman says 'we're holding you accountable for speech we don't like' the first amendment is implicated.
In context, obviously that accountability is limited to access to the WH briefing room, and the first amendment is not implicated unless you're motivated to squint.
FIRE disagrees with you. Maybe it'll get litigated, but I doubt it, as AP realizes they'll just get punished in some other way.
It's difficult for me to take seriously any claim that political alignment has never played a part in the secret filtering process of which media outlets are included and excluded from the WH press briefing room. Now those decisions are under a microscope, and the rhetorical hand wringers can do their hand wringing. I'm not obligated to be impressed.
-
I’ll call that faith-based whattabouttism. “Your side has probably done it too, but secretly”.
-
It's a term. One that is apparently not engraved in stone.
I think the issue is a bit silly, but so be it. No First Amendment rights have been abridged.
Access to the Whitehouse Briefing Room is a privilege, it is not a right. People have been barred in the past and they will be barred in the future.
-
It is impossible to imagine anybody taking seriously the perspective that access to the WH briefing room during KJP's reign there, equaled access to important reportable information. Again, the hand wringing here is not impressive. At least this press secretary is relatively transparent and direct in her answers. (For those of us who've ever listened to her.) My guess is that the AP will get their credential back if they stop holding their breath. I also guess that their reporting will be identical with or without that credential.
-
The AP is reporting that the AP is suing the press secretary.
I'm not sure this will come off as well as they think it will. But I'm sure the usual suspects will eat it up.
Education is extremely important.
-
The AP is reporting that the AP is suing the press secretary.
I'm not sure this will come off as well as they think it will. But I'm sure the usual suspects will eat it up.
@Horace said in Glad the free speech folks are in charge:
The AP is reporting that the AP is suing the press secretary.
I'm not sure this will come off as well as they think it will. But I'm sure the usual suspects will eat it up.
The Whitehouse is not excluding them, except in small venues and they aren't excluding them at all from public events.
It's bad optics, but I don't think it is unconstitutional. We shall see.
