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.
@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.
-
Newsmax and Fox News are among the outlets who have reportedly signed onto a letter pushing back on the Trump administration’s decision to restrict the Associated Press’s White House access, in a dispute over President Trump renaming the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America.
“The First Amendment prohibits the government from asserting control over how news organizations make editorial decisions. Any attempt to punish journalists for those decisions is a serious breach of this Constitutional protection,” the letter reads,
https://thehill.com/homenews/5155957-newsmax-fox-news-support-ap-first-amendment/
-
I imagine Fox and Newsmax can think further ahead than the next couple of years, which is a concept that a number of people on both sides of the political divide seem to struggle with.
-
This is just such a practically meaningless thing. I chuckle at the idea that an in-person presser with KJP is considered an important fundamental right of the press. Those abject nothing-burgers of question avoidance are a cornerstone of the press's ability to do its job.
I know this is for the principle of it, but the principle of it really does boil down to how to ration finite seats in a press conference.
If this happens to conservative news sources in a future administration, it'll only be red meat to their base, so I don't think I'm being hypocritical with my shrug here.
