Glad the free speech folks are in charge
-
wrote on 4 Feb 2025, 11:22 last edited by
(To be clear, I’m not a fan of publicizing the names of federal workers in controversial areas whether it’s Elon doing it or a twitter rando, really just pointing out Elon’s hypocrisy here)
-
wrote on 8 Feb 2025, 14:43 last edited by
-
wrote on 8 Feb 2025, 14:48 last edited by
Is anonymous synonymous with free speech?
-
wrote on 9 Feb 2025, 19:46 last edited by
Trump's own personal polls touted his winning New York and California. Can I sue?
-
wrote on 13 Feb 2025, 15:01 last edited by
-
wrote on 13 Feb 2025, 15:19 last edited by
Free speech != free access to the white house press briefing room. I'm glad they have seats for "new press", and if they'd like to hold the AP accountable for being obstinate about the Gulf of America, ok by me. I don't mistake calling it "the Gulf of Mexico" for a principled stance. It is a child holding their breath.
-
wrote on 13 Feb 2025, 15:42 last edited by jon-nyc
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?
-
wrote on 13 Feb 2025, 15:45 last edited by jon-nyc
When the WH spokesman says 'we're holding you accountable for speech we don't like' the first amendment is implicated.
-
When the WH spokesman says 'we're holding you accountable for speech we don't like' the first amendment is implicated.
wrote on 13 Feb 2025, 15:49 last edited by@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.
-
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?
wrote on 13 Feb 2025, 15:50 last edited by@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.
-
wrote on 13 Feb 2025, 16:02 last edited by
I’m going with Golfo del Gringo Loco.
Has nice lyrical ring to it.
-
When the WH spokesman says 'we're holding you accountable for speech we don't like' the first amendment is implicated.
wrote on 13 Feb 2025, 16:05 last edited by@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.
-
wrote on 13 Feb 2025, 16:08 last edited by Jolly
He's thinking some of you are picayunish idiots.
-
@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.
wrote on 13 Feb 2025, 16:15 last edited by@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.
wrote on 13 Feb 2025, 16:22 last edited by@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.
-
wrote on 13 Feb 2025, 16:24 last edited by
I’ll call that faith-based whattabouttism. “Your side has probably done it too, but secretly”.
-
I’ll call that faith-based whattabouttism. “Your side has probably done it too, but secretly”.
-
wrote on 13 Feb 2025, 16:27 last edited by
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.
-
wrote on 13 Feb 2025, 16:28 last edited by jon-nyc
I don’t know that to be true. Originally it was everybody, because there were only so many sources. What criteria have been used to add new ones I don’t know. It may well have been publicized at some point along the way.
-
wrote on 13 Feb 2025, 16:30 last edited by
A Whitehouse Presser is a privilege. There is no Constitutional requirement to hold one.
Mr. Biden did very few.