ap suing trump administration over freedom of speech

24,435 Views | 281 Replies | Last: 6 mo ago by flown-the-coop
No Spin Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
flown-the-coop said:

BMX Bandit said:

anything they do is going to invite a lawsuit.

but rotating journalist not based on the content of what they say is clearly content-neutral and any lawsuit would be easily defeated.
Trump will make a fool of the journalist who files a lawsuit.

People need to buckle-up. Trump is very likely to have the FCC and the FEC investigating the MSM outlets for their bias in the 2024 elections.

I expect CBS and NBC to both be at best fined for this if not having their FCC licenses to broadcast suspended and/or revoked.

The seriousness of what MSM has done serving as the mouthpiece for a political party and at the same claiming 1A access to cover POTUS has to be addressed - and Trump will do so.


Yet another thing the SC needs to rule on so that we don't hear about this ever again.
There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the later ignorance. Hippocrates
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HTownAg98 said:

BMX Bandit said:

anything they do is going to invite a lawsuit.

but rotating journalist not based on the content of what they say is clearly content-neutral and any lawsuit would be easily defeated.
Completely agree. I just don't trust that any administration is actually going to do that, because the past three administrations have proven otherwise.
You got some source for this material?

You just previously admitted that the WHCA was choosing journalists so how has Trump done anything based on content?

By past three, I am assuming that includes Obama?
HTownAg98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
flown-the-coop said:

HTownAg98 said:

BMX Bandit said:

anything they do is going to invite a lawsuit.

but rotating journalist not based on the content of what they say is clearly content-neutral and any lawsuit would be easily defeated.
Completely agree. I just don't trust that any administration is actually going to do that, because the past three administrations have proven otherwise.
You got some source for this material?

You just previously admitted that the WHCA was choosing journalists so how has Trump done anything based on content?

By past three, I am assuming that includes Obama?
There's two components: the hard pass, which gets you into the building, and then WHCA deciding where you can go once you're in the building. The revoking of the hard passes is what the government can control.

Biden did it when they heightened security requirements (a legitimate reason or not is up for debate), and over 400 journalists lost their passes. Simon Ateba sued, and lost and appealed, but it appears his pass has been restored by the current administration, so it's moot now.

Brian Karem and Jim Acosta had their hard passes revoked by the Trump administration. Both sued and had their passes restored.

I could have sworn Obama did as well, but my search is coming up empty. So I can say for sure the past two have done so.
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HTownAg98 said:

flown-the-coop said:

HTownAg98 said:

BMX Bandit said:

anything they do is going to invite a lawsuit.

but rotating journalist not based on the content of what they say is clearly content-neutral and any lawsuit would be easily defeated.
Completely agree. I just don't trust that any administration is actually going to do that, because the past three administrations have proven otherwise.
You got some source for this material?

You just previously admitted that the WHCA was choosing journalists so how has Trump done anything based on content?

By past three, I am assuming that includes Obama?
There's two components: the hard pass, which gets you into the building, and then WHCA deciding where you can go once you're in the building. The revoking of the hard passes is what the government can control.

Biden did it when they heightened security requirements (a legitimate reason or not is up for debate), and over 400 journalists lost their passes. Simon Ateba sued, and lost and appealed, but it appears his pass has been restored by the current administration, so it's moot now.

Brian Karem and Jim Acosta had their hard passes revoked by the Trump administration. Both sued and had their passes restored.

I could have sworn Obama did as well, but my search is coming up empty. So I can say for sure the past two have done so.
Correct. The hard passes are much more subject to "freedom of access" as indicated in your response above and the case you referenced.

My understanding is the AP just lost their place in the Oval / AF1 press pools. As indicated in the response from gov attny Brian Hodak:
Quote:

Hudak said that just because an AP reporter and photographer had long held a place in the White House press pool didn't mean the agency was entitled to it in perpetuity.


"That's not just special access. That's extra-special access," Hudak said, noting that AP journalists continue to access the White House and publish news from events, even when its journalists are not present in the room where they happen. "The president can choose who to speak with."

Regarding the WHCA, it does NOT have any basis outside of 'tradition' to determine the composition of the more exclusive press pools for AF1 and/or the Oval.

The AP has no legal basis to claim they must be a part of the extra-special access pool just like they cannot demand to be called on. POTUS is within his discretion to make those determinations.

For some reason, you seem to think WHCA "authority" exceeds that of POTUS in this area, and its simply incorrect.
Logos Stick
How long do you want to ignore this user?
libs are clowns.

everyone of them!

flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
They let the gaggle go on for a bit and completely open floor. Hell, even Lawrence Jones from Fox who was just visiting the White House was allowed in alongside Peter Doocy (the usual correspondent for Fox).

Trump was getting irritated with one reporter who kept asking the same question over and over.

Its funny to me that some people still have to fall on the "well, let's just see if Team Trump really does rotate people" schtick as if Trump is not the guy who delivers time and again on his words.
HTownAg98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
flown-the-coop said:

HTownAg98 said:

flown-the-coop said:

HTownAg98 said:

BMX Bandit said:

anything they do is going to invite a lawsuit.

but rotating journalist not based on the content of what they say is clearly content-neutral and any lawsuit would be easily defeated.
Completely agree. I just don't trust that any administration is actually going to do that, because the past three administrations have proven otherwise.
You got some source for this material?

You just previously admitted that the WHCA was choosing journalists so how has Trump done anything based on content?

By past three, I am assuming that includes Obama?
There's two components: the hard pass, which gets you into the building, and then WHCA deciding where you can go once you're in the building. The revoking of the hard passes is what the government can control.

Biden did it when they heightened security requirements (a legitimate reason or not is up for debate), and over 400 journalists lost their passes. Simon Ateba sued, and lost and appealed, but it appears his pass has been restored by the current administration, so it's moot now.

Brian Karem and Jim Acosta had their hard passes revoked by the Trump administration. Both sued and had their passes restored.

I could have sworn Obama did as well, but my search is coming up empty. So I can say for sure the past two have done so.
Correct. The hard passes are much more subject to "freedom of access" as indicated in your response above and the case you referenced.

My understanding is the AP just lost their place in the Oval / AF1 press pools. As indicated in the response from gov attny Brian Hodak:
Quote:

Hudak said that just because an AP reporter and photographer had long held a place in the White House press pool didn't mean the agency was entitled to it in perpetuity.


"That's not just special access. That's extra-special access," Hudak said, noting that AP journalists continue to access the White House and publish news from events, even when its journalists are not present in the room where they happen. "The president can choose who to speak with."

Regarding the WHCA, it does NOT have any basis outside of 'tradition' to determine the composition of the more exclusive press pools for AF1 and/or the Oval.

The AP has no legal basis to claim they must be a part of the extra-special access pool just like they cannot demand to be called on. POTUS is within his discretion to make those determinations.

For some reason, you seem to think WHCA "authority" exceeds that of POTUS in this area, and its simply incorrect.
Yet again, you are misconstruing what I'm saying, and it's getting to the point that I'm wondering why I should even bother.

The AP does not have any special privilege to be in the AF1 or Oval Office press pools outside of what the WHCA decides. The White House has traditionally left who gets those spots up to the WHCA, and yes, the WHCA does not have any authority that exceeds the White House in that determination. The whole point of the AP's lawsuit is that they were kicked out by the White House for "clear viewpoint discrimination" according to Judge McFadden, and I'm not the only one on this thread that believes the AP was going to prevail in the pending lawsuit.
Now, you can say that the White House was wanting to grant more access to a wider pool of journalists, but I find it incredibly convenient that was implemented the day after Judge McFadden fired a shot across their bow. We'll see how this all works out. I'm hoping it does, but I'm going to bet they manage to somehow screw it up.

will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?
NM
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HTownAg98 said:



Yet again, you are misconstruing what I'm saying, and it's getting to the point that I'm wondering why I should even bother.

The AP does not have any special privilege to be in the AF1 or Oval Office press pools outside of what the WHCA decides. The White House has traditionally left who gets those spots up to the WHCA, and yes, the WHCA does not have any authority that exceeds the White House in that determination. The whole point of the AP's lawsuit is that they were kicked out by the White House for "clear viewpoint discrimination" according to Judge McFadden, and I'm not the only one on this thread that believes the AP was going to prevail in the pending lawsuit.
Now, you can say that the White House was wanting to grant more access to a wider pool of journalists, but I find it incredibly convenient that was decided the day after Judge McFadden fired a shot across their bow. We'll see how this all works out. I'm hoping it does, but I'm going to bet they manage to somehow screw it up.


Me not agreeing with you is not me "misconstruing" what you are saying.

I am clearly saying you are wrong on this both in facts and theory. That is my opinion of course but I have a pretty strong record of being right, so confidence is high.

To be clear, the WHCA certainly does not have authority that exceeds that of the White House. In fact, they have NO authority whatsoever.

The AP will not prevail on this. You can bookmark and check back later.

The AP is misreporting and propagating a factual error. In the United States, it is the Gulf of America. Period. That is not a "viewpoint" or being critical of policy, it is a factual error for them to keep calling it Gulf of Mexico.

Their sole reason for doing so is "Orange Man Bad". All maps, electronic and printed, all official communication, what is taught in school, and how it should be referred to in the news should follow the law of the land, which Trump renamed it Gulf of America.

The AP throwing a tantrum on the sole basis of trying to embarrass POTUS is pathetic and sophomoric. Their contention that telling them to report accurately or they will not be allowed to the "extra-special access" of the Oval / AF1 is does not, even in a land of fairy dust and unicorn rainbow farts, rise to the level of "severely impedes the public's access to independent news.
Quote:

"It is alarming that the Trump administration would punish AP for its independent journalism," Pace said in a statement. "Limiting our access to the Oval Office based on the content of AP's speech not only severely impedes the public's access to independent news, it plainly violates the First Amendment."
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
For those who think this expanded press access is in any way in response to the AP lawsuit, that is factually incorrect.

Fact: Chanel Rion began to attack and breakup the WHCA way before the AP even sniffed Trump's renaming the body of water to our south as "Gulf of America"

Fact: In Karoline Leavitt's first WH briefing on January 28, 2025, at just over 5 minutes in she lays out their new approach to press access including non-traditional media outlets and restoring press passes Biden revoked.

Quote:

"And in keeping with this revolutionary media approach that President Trump deployed during the campaign, the Trump White House will speak to all media outlets and personalities, not just the legacy media who are seated in this room, because apporting --according to recent polling from Gallup, Americans' trust in mass media has fallen to a record low.

Millions of Americans, especially young people, have turned from traditional television outlets and newspapers to consume their news from podcasts, blogs, social media, and other independent outlets. It's essential to our team that we share President Trump's message everywhere and adapt this White House to the new media landscape in 2025. To do this, I am excited to announce the following changes will be made to this historic James S. Brady Briefing Room, where Mr. Brady's legacy will endure.

This White House believes strongly in the First Amendment, so it's why our team will work diligently to restore the press passes of the 440 journalists whose passes were wrongly revoked by the previous administration. We're also opening up this briefing room to new media voices who produce news-related content and whose outlet is not already represented by one of the seats in this room. We welcome independent journalists, podcasters, social media influencers, and content creators to apply for credentials to cover this White House. And you can apply now on our new website, WhiteHouse.gov/NewMedia. Starting today, this seat in the front of the room,"

Does the AP really want to argue the public has been harmed by Trump banning them whilst they report misinformation?
Ag with kids
How long do you want to ignore this user?
flown-the-coop said:

They let the gaggle go on for a bit and completely open floor. Hell, even Lawrence Jones from Fox who was just visiting the White House was allowed in alongside Peter Doocy (the usual correspondent for Fox).

Trump was getting irritated with one reporter who kept asking the same question over and over.

Its funny to me that some people still have to fall on the "well, let's just see if Team Trump really does rotate people" schtick as if Trump is not the guy who delivers time and again on his words.
Trump should just tell the press that if they don't stop their bull*****...



That his administration would follow the Biden schedule for press briefings and personal appearances.

Basically take the 4 years of Biden and make a schedule from it and give it to the media and the courts...

And tell all of them to back the **** up....or else.
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I really do understand that some want a nice decorum Trump, that he and Elon are scripted and always on message, that all legal angles have been considered, put in a memo, circulated, posted for public comment, and then be polite as they sue, lambast him, impeach him and shoot at him occasionally.

But the left have played dirty for so long. Nothing but receipt, gaslighting, lies, coverups and theft.

Let's just all let Trump be his best, arsehole warts and all.
Logos Stick
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ellis Wyatt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Gosh, it doesn't seem like the WHCA is really concerned with free speech after all. Like all marxists, control seems to be their motivation. Control over something they have no legitimate right to control.

Maybe we'll see at least a little different behavior from the White House press corps.
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Was it a strongly worded chilling letter or just a chilling letter? Cause I would expect a strongly worded chilling letter given the seriousness of this matter.

The WHCA is now a defunct club of lib lefties sad someone busted their anti-American cabal.

Suggest they keep WHCA but change the letterhead to White House Crying *******s.
agwrestler
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Old McDonald said:

Ellis Wyatt said:

The Biden administration was literally censoring Americans on social media. Having their posts removed for "misinformation" that was actually "information."
it's still hilarious to me that republicans turned the biden admin asking facebook and twitter to take down hunter's d*** pics into an existential free speech crisis, different strokes i guess

Nice strawman. Guess Username checks out.
It wasn't about Hunters dick pics, it was about the Loads of evidence about Joe's selling influence from his VP office through Hunter. The contents of that laptop alone should have had Joe and Hunter behind bars in 2021.
BMX Bandit
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Injunction hearing today:







Stat Monitor Repairman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AP will argue that Trump denying them millions in USAID funding amounts to prior restraint.

AP gon' full JG Wentworth!

It's their money and they WANT IT NOW!
doubledog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
damiond said:

https://apnews.com/article/ap-lawsuit-trump-administration-officials-0352075501b779b8b187667f3427e0e8
the AP says its case is about an unconstitutional effort by the White House to control speech - in this case not changing its style from the Gulf of Mexico to the "Gulf of America," as President Donald Trump did last month with an executive order.


the hypocrisy of this argument when the msm controls speech




The AP can't print anything it wants, so freedom of speech is not an issue.
HTownAg98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Preliminary injunction granted. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25889254-ap277682/
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HTownAg98 said:

Preliminary injunction granted. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25889254-ap277682/
AP is an unique type of press animal due to their pool business model. That makes a showing of irreparable harm for an injunction easier to show.
will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BMX Bandit
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HtownAg cleaned house on this thread.
Logos Stick
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Will Trump appeal this idiotic decision?
EX TEXASEX
How long do you want to ignore this user?



Quote:

AP's style is now to capitalize Black in a racial, ethnic or cultural sense, conveying an essential and shared sense of history, identity and community among people who identify as Black, including those in the African diaspora and within Africa. The lowercase black is a color, not a person.
Quote:

These changes align with long-standing capitalization of other racial and ethnic identifiers such as Latino, Asian American and Native American. Our discussions on style and language consider many points, including the need to be inclusive and respectful in our storytelling and the evolution of language. We believe this change serves those ends.


Are these the same people who forced people to start capitalizing "B" for black people in sentences, but " W " white people does not need to be capitalized ?? It is not just black its other groups too. There is an exclusion though. I would say guess who but everybody already knows !!! I think race base rule changes made at the drop of the hat are the epitome of control speech. AP is a garbage marxist /racist organization.


Take a look at this ethno marxist BULL***** Guess which group is not deserving of capitalization.


https://www.ap.org/the-definitive-source/announcements/the-decision-to-capitalize-black/
#FJB
Ag with kids
How long do you want to ignore this user?
EX TEXASEX said:




Quote:

AP's style is now to capitalize Black in a racial, ethnic or cultural sense, conveying an essential and shared sense of history, identity and community among people who identify as Black, including those in the African diaspora and within Africa. The lowercase black is a color, not a person.
Quote:

These changes align with long-standing capitalization of other racial and ethnic identifiers such as Latino, Asian American and Native American. Our discussions on style and language consider many points, including the need to be inclusive and respectful in our storytelling and the evolution of language. We believe this change serves those ends.


Are these the same people who forced people to start capitalizing "B" for black people in sentences, but " W " white people does not need to be capitalized ?? It is not just black its other groups too. There is an exclusion though. I would say guess who but everybody already knows !!! I think race base rule changes made at the drop of the hat are the epitome of control speech. AP is a garbage marxist /racist organization.


Take a look at this ethno marxist BULL***** Guess which group is not deserving of capitalization.


https://www.ap.org/the-definitive-source/announcements/the-decision-to-capitalize-black/
They shouldn't break their own rules with their references to the Indians that were here when we arrived...

Quote:

We also now capitalize Indigenous in reference to original inhabitants of a place.
NONE of them were the Clovis people...
Squadron7
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Let them back in and never call on them.
Bill Clinternet
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ellis Wyatt said:

Trump hasn't violated their right to speech.

The Biden administration was literally censoring Americans on social media. Having their posts removed for "misinformation" that was actually "information."

The AP and the left can piss up a rope.
This post shows the utter hypocrisy of what the far right has become.

It is crystal clear they are censoring speech. A third grader could understand this.

Don't get any in your hair buddy.

“A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for... is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free.”

— John Stuart Mill----On Liberty
MelvinUdall
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bill Clinternet said:

Ellis Wyatt said:

Trump hasn't violated their right to speech.

The Biden administration was literally censoring Americans on social media. Having their posts removed for "misinformation" that was actually "information."

The AP and the left can piss up a rope.
This post shows the utter hypocrisy of what the far right has become.

It is crystal clear they are censoring speech. A third grader could understand this.

Don't get any in your hair buddy.




How is Trump and his staff censoring speech?
Aggie Dad Sip
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MelvinUdall said:

Bill Clinternet said:

Ellis Wyatt said:

Trump hasn't violated their right to speech.

The Biden administration was literally censoring Americans on social media. Having their posts removed for "misinformation" that was actually "information."

The AP and the left can piss up a rope.
This post shows the utter hypocrisy of what the far right has become.

It is crystal clear they are censoring speech. A third grader could understand this.

Don't get any in your hair buddy.




How is Trump and his staff censoring speech?

As aggressively as they can.
CrackerJackAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Aggie Dad Sip said:

MelvinUdall said:

Bill Clinternet said:

Ellis Wyatt said:

Trump hasn't violated their right to speech.

The Biden administration was literally censoring Americans on social media. Having their posts removed for "misinformation" that was actually "information."

The AP and the left can piss up a rope.
This post shows the utter hypocrisy of what the far right has become.

It is crystal clear they are censoring speech. A third grader could understand this.

Don't get any in your hair buddy.




How is Trump and his staff censoring speech?

As aggressively as they can.


Good articulate answer. Third grader level.
HoustonAg75
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Trump hasn't violated their right to speech in anyway.
BMX Bandit
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Of note, the government did not request that bond be posted. Which goes against the executive order saying they should be demanded in all cases seeking injunction against federal government.

Perhaps a sign they don't plan to appeal?


It's pretty straightforward opinion. The White House can exclude anyone it wants from Oval Office, etc, but can't do it in retaliation for viewpoints.
HTownAg98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Judge McFadden says very clearly and plainly "lol, no."
BMX Bandit
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Well technically Trump was not a party. Maybe that's what she meant.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.