I've wondered about that. It was his EO that started this mess. Why wasn't he named? Is it because other officers in the executive branch were the ones enforcing the order?

Assign them a seat…. Right outside the closed door.

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.

---

In what way? Are they trying to shutdown the AP?

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.

---

In what way? Are they trying to shutdown the AP?

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.

---

Please show your work rather than making hollow claims.

It would be more accurate to say that their 1A rights, specifically freedom of the press, has been violated. But their right to free speech was violated as well when they were banned because they refuse to call the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America.

deddog said:

---

Let the AP into the WhiteHouse briefing.
Never respond to any AP questions.
Add space for podcasters. Respond to their questions.
Laugh at the AP.

---

hahhahah
Love this

HTownAg98 said:

---

It would be more accurate to say that their 1A rights, specifically freedom of the press, has been violated. But their right to free speech was violated as well when they were banned because they refuse to call the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America.

---

This is no way a sarcastic question…if they are still able to right articles on anything the President speaks about, how is their freedom being taken away from them? Is this simply because they aren't allowed to ask questions or aren't called on? What about any other news organization that isn't allowed to ask questions of the President?

they are being punished for their speech. they refuse to change the stylebook to use "Gulf of America" and because of that were excluded from press pool events.

EX TEXASEX said:

---

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.

---

I won't be surprised when I start seeing them sign off on their articles as "they/them". Liberalism is crazy cult

MelvinUdall said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

It would be more accurate to say that their 1A rights, specifically freedom of the press, has been violated. But their right to free speech was violated as well when they were banned because they refuse to call the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America.

---

This is no way a sarcastic question…if they are still able to right articles on anything the President speaks about, how is their freedom being taken away from them? Is this simply because they aren't allowed to ask questions or aren't called on? What about any other news organization that isn't allowed to ask questions of the President?

---

I would like to ask the president a question. I've just got to find the right judge to let me on Airforce 1.

I've got news for you, and it's going to make you sad.

MelvinUdall said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

It would be more accurate to say that their 1A rights, specifically freedom of the press, has been violated. But their right to free speech was violated as well when they were banned because they refuse to call the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America.

---

This is no way a sarcastic question…if they are still able to right articles on anything the President speaks about, how is their freedom being taken away from them? Is this simply because they aren't allowed to ask questions or aren't called on? What about any other news organization that isn't allowed to ask questions of the President?

---

No offense taken, and I'll gladly answer your question. The AP didn't sue because they aren't permitted to ask questions or aren't called on. They freely admit in their filings they don't have that right. They sued because they were excluded from the rooms/places that were opened up to the press and could not cover the events at all because of their viewpoint. All they sued over was the right to have a chance to cover the events. And that's all they got.

HTownAg98 said:

---

It would be more accurate to say that their 1A rights, specifically freedom of the press, has been violated. But their right to free speech was violated as well when they were banned because they refuse to call the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America.

---

Nobody is restricting the AP's rights to speech. They can speak and write everything they want. The right to free speech does not include sitting in a room listening to the press secretary.

BMX Bandit said:

---

they are being punished for their speech. they refuse to change the stylebook to use "Gulf of America" and because of that were excluded from press pool events.

---

They can keep their stylebook. Trump is not burning that 'book'. But here we are arguing to argue invalid concerns.

HTownAg98 said:

---

I've got news for you, and it's going to make you sad.

---

Anybody with a press pass should be on AF1? LOL.

deddog said:

---

Let the AP into the WhiteHouse briefing.
Never respond to any AP questions.
Add space for podcasters. Respond to their questions.
Laugh at the AP.

---

Just never call on them. It's really quite simple.

bobbranco said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

It would be more accurate to say that their 1A rights, specifically freedom of the press, has been violated. But their right to free speech was violated as well when they were banned because they refuse to call the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America.

---

Nobody is restricting the AP's rights to speech. They can speak and write everything they want. The right to free speech does not include sitting in a room listening to the press secretary.

---

That's exactly what they sued over: the right to sit in a room and listen to the press secretary. More specifically, they sued over having a chance to sit in a room and listen to the press secretary.

I'll post what I posted on the other thread here. Not that my viewpoint matters.

But this to me seems to be the government punishing the AP over protected speech under 1st amendment. The government can't punish you for something you say or don't say to their liking.

will25u said:

---

The only reason the AP is at issue is because the White House said that they weren't allowing the AP into those places because they would not call it the Gulf of America.

If they had kept their mouth shut and just did it, we wouldn't be here. Unless the AP could prove that that is why they weren't being allowed in.

In my opinion, the AP/judge is right. The government can't condition things on what a news organization or anyone for that matter says or doesn't say. Seems this is a core 1st amendment violation to me.

But this is just my lay person common sense feeling about this.

---

bobbranco said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

I've got news for you, and it's going to make you sad.

---

Anybody with a press pass should be on AF1? LOL.

---

Reading comprehension must not be your strong suit. Anyone that applies to be a pool reporter for limited space events that is properly vetted gets to be a part of that particular pool. The White House then chooses who is allowed on AF1. As long as they are non-discriminatory with how they do their selection, they do not run afoul of the first amendment.

newbie11 said:

---

deddog said:

---

Let the AP into the WhiteHouse briefing.
Never respond to any AP questions.
Add space for podcasters. Respond to their questions.
Laugh at the AP.

---

Just never call on them. It's really quite simple.

---

For at least the third time, the AP is not asking to be called on.

Seems disingenuous to be antagonistic to the people you're demanding access to.

HTownAg98 said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

It would be more accurate to say that their 1A rights, specifically freedom of the press, has been violated. But their right to free speech was violated as well when they were banned because they refuse to call the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America.

---

Nobody is restricting the AP's rights to speech. They can speak and write everything they want. The right to free speech does not include sitting in a room listening to the press secretary.

---

That's exactly what they sued over: the right to sit in a room and listen to the press secretary. More specifically, they sued over having a chance to sit in a room and listen to the press secretary.

---

The judge and any lawyer lending any credence to this argument is an idiot. Our republic is lost. The AP can easily monitor and listen to the press briefing and write whatever they want to write. The mere fact they think it's their constitutional right to sit in the room is hilariously stupid. Thanks for latest laugh track.

bobbranco said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

It would be more accurate to say that their 1A rights, specifically freedom of the press, has been violated. But their right to free speech was violated as well when they were banned because they refuse to call the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America.

---

Nobody is restricting the AP's rights to speech. They can speak and write everything they want. The right to free speech does not include sitting in a room listening to the press secretary.

---

That's exactly what they sued over: the right to sit in a room and listen to the press secretary. More specifically, they sued over having a chance to sit in a room and listen to the press secretary.

---

The judge and any lawyer lending any credence to this argument is an idiot. Our republic is lost. The AP can easily monitor and listen to the press briefing and write whatever they want to write. The mere fact they think it's their constitutional right to sit in the room is hilariously stupid. Thanks for latest laugh track.

---

It's not even that.

I believe it is just the government "punishing" the AP for not calling it the Gulf of America. The Whitehouse even said that is why they were doing it.

The US Government cannot do that under the 1st amendment.

Now, I can get behind that they knew they would lose the court case. And said it to send a message to the other press outlets that things are different now.

bobbranco said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

It would be more accurate to say that their 1A rights, specifically freedom of the press, has been violated. But their right to free speech was violated as well when they were banned because they refuse to call the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America.

---

Nobody is restricting the AP's rights to speech. They can speak and write everything they want. The right to free speech does not include sitting in a room listening to the press secretary.

---

That's exactly what they sued over: the right to sit in a room and listen to the press secretary. More specifically, they sued over having a chance to sit in a room and listen to the press secretary.

---

The judge and any lawyer lending any credence to this argument is an idiot. Our republic is lost. The AP can easily monitor and listen to the press briefing and write whatever they want to write. The mere fact they think it's their constitutional right to sit in the room is hilariously stupid. Thanks for latest laugh track.

---

You should have just said "I have no idea how the first amendment works" and saved yourself some calories typing out that nonsense.
ETA: I'm going to make this very simple for you.
1. The government has chosen to open certain areas of the White House and Air Force One to the press. They are not required to do that, and can cut off all access at anytime.
2. The spaces the White House has invited the press into are limited in size, and can only accommodate a certain number of journalists.
3. The White House has a compelling interest to ensure that those areas are safe and secured. No one disputes this.
4. The White House institutes policies to keep those areas safe and secure. No one disputes this either.
5. When the White House denies an organization the chance to even access these areas to cover press briefings, bill signings, or other similar events because of an organization's viewpoint, they have violated the First Amendment. There's mountains of case law backing this up, going back to our founding.

will25u said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

It would be more accurate to say that their 1A rights, specifically freedom of the press, has been violated. But their right to free speech was violated as well when they were banned because they refuse to call the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America.

---

Nobody is restricting the AP's rights to speech. They can speak and write everything they want. The right to free speech does not include sitting in a room listening to the press secretary.

---

That's exactly what they sued over: the right to sit in a room and listen to the press secretary. More specifically, they sued over having a chance to sit in a room and listen to the press secretary.

---

The judge and any lawyer lending any credence to this argument is an idiot. Our republic is lost. The AP can easily monitor and listen to the press briefing and write whatever they want to write. The mere fact they think it's their constitutional right to sit in the room is hilariously stupid. Thanks for latest laugh track.

---

It's not even that.

I believe it is just the government "punishing" the AP for not calling it the Gulf of America. The Whitehouse even said that is why they were doing it.

The US Government cannot do that under the 1st amendment.

Now, I can get behind that they knew they would lose the court case. And said it to send a message to the other press outlets that things are different now.

---

Please show me where any news organization has the right to sit in a room and listen to the press secretary. There are restrictions to access the press room. The AP's exclusion is not out of the ordinary or unconstitutional. Remember, the AP's situation is not a one off because plenty of news agencies have been kicked out in the past.

HTownAg98 said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

It would be more accurate to say that their 1A rights, specifically freedom of the press, has been violated. But their right to free speech was violated as well when they were banned because they refuse to call the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America.

---

Nobody is restricting the AP's rights to speech. They can speak and write everything they want. The right to free speech does not include sitting in a room listening to the press secretary.

---

That's exactly what they sued over: the right to sit in a room and listen to the press secretary. More specifically, they sued over having a chance to sit in a room and listen to the press secretary.

---

The judge and any lawyer lending any credence to this argument is an idiot. Our republic is lost. The AP can easily monitor and listen to the press briefing and write whatever they want to write. The mere fact they think it's their constitutional right to sit in the room is hilariously stupid. Thanks for latest laugh track.

---

You should have just said "I have no idea how the first amendment works" and saved yourself some calories typing out that nonsense.

---

Maybe lawyers should not be tyrants by treating the constitution as a living document and erode its value.

If a future Dem president denies access to Catturd is this censorship?

So, the weasels with the Ass Press have gained access back to White House press conferences. I'm sure it'll improve their accuracy in reporting. (Huge Eyeroll)

Quote:

---

Remember, the AP's situation is not a one off because plenty of news agencies have been kicked out in the past.

---

Which news agencies were kicked out in retaliation for what they said (or refused to say) ?

Squadron7 said:

---

If a future Dem president denies access to Catturd is this censorship?

---

If the denial is based on viewpoints he has expressed, then that would violate the 1st amendment.

It has nothing to do with AP having access to those rooms. And I personally think the AP is just a democrat propaganda fake news outlet.

The issue is that the US Government is penalizing, or punishing the AP for not calling the Gulf of America the Gulf of America.

When looking at it in the way I posted above, and if that is what is going on, I don't see how anyone could argue that it is OK for the US government to stomp on the RIGHT of the AP to call the Gulf of America anything they damn well please. Call it the Gulf of Russia or China or Associated Press for all I care.

The Whitehouse admitted to EVERYONE in public that the reason they were not allowing the AP in those areas is because they refuse to call the Gulf of America what the government wants them to call it.

Sometimes you have to be able to call your side out if they are doing something wrong.

bobbranco said:

---

will25u said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

It would be more accurate to say that their 1A rights, specifically freedom of the press, has been violated. But their right to free speech was violated as well when they were banned because they refuse to call the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America.

---

Nobody is restricting the AP's rights to speech. They can speak and write everything they want. The right to free speech does not include sitting in a room listening to the press secretary.

---

That's exactly what they sued over: the right to sit in a room and listen to the press secretary. More specifically, they sued over having a chance to sit in a room and listen to the press secretary.

---

The judge and any lawyer lending any credence to this argument is an idiot. Our republic is lost. The AP can easily monitor and listen to the press briefing and write whatever they want to write. The mere fact they think it's their constitutional right to sit in the room is hilariously stupid. Thanks for latest laugh track.

---

It's not even that.

I believe it is just the government "punishing" the AP for not calling it the Gulf of America. The Whitehouse even said that is why they were doing it.

The US Government cannot do that under the 1st amendment.

Now, I can get behind that they knew they would lose the court case. And said it to send a message to the other press outlets that things are different now.

---

Please show me where any news organization has the right to sit in a room and listen to the press secretary. There are restrictions to access the press room. The AP's exclusion is not out of the ordinary or unconstitutional. Remember, the AP's situation is not a one off because plenty of news agencies have been kicked out in the past.

---

I answered this in my edit above. (I know your question isn't directed at me, but the edit and answer fits.)

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Remember, the AP's situation is not a one off because plenty of news agencies have been kicked out in the past.

---

Which news agencies were kicked out in retaliation for what they said (or refused to say) ?

---

Jim Acosta was, and he sued and won. Funny how that happened. Though I'll admit that his case hinged more on a Fifth Amendment claim of due process. In the present case, McFadden didn't get into the Fifth Amendment claim because those issues didn't fit neatly into the preliminary injunction of what the AP was asking for. The First Amendment claims were easier and cleaner to address.

Squadron7 said:

---

If a future Dem president denies access to Catturd is this censorship?

---

That's the game being played right now.

Catturd would never be allowed into the White House Correspondents' Association's Press Pool because the WHCA is run by avowed leftists who would never let them into the Press Pool.... Precisely BECAUSE of what Catturd writes.

But since the WHCA is not a government entity, they don't have to follow the 1st Amendment, and can keep the club a leftist opposition advocacy group.... or, in the case of a Democrat administration, an organized cheerleading and support group.

And who said people can't have it both ways?

This BS will work until it doesn't. And the leftists will have only themselves to blame.