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.

---

Cornelius v. NAACP Leg. Def. Fund, 473 U.S. 788 (1985)

Quote:

---

Control over access to a nonpublic forum can be based on subject matter and speaker identity so long as the distinctions drawn are reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum and are viewpoint-neutral. Perry Education Assn., supra, at 460 U. S. 49. Although a speaker may be excluded from a nonpublic forum if he wishes to address a topic not encompassed within the purpose of the forum, see Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights, 418 U. S. 298 (1974), or if he is not a member of the class of speakers for whose especial benefit the forum was created, see Perry Education Assn., supra, the government violates the First Amendment when it denies access to a speaker solely to suppress the point of view he espouses on an otherwise includible subject.

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

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.

---

Ok.

So, the Trump admin should say they are eligible to be picked.

Then never pick them.

jrdaustin said:

---

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 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.

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.

---

Newsmax is a member of the WHCA, and I don't believe they're left wing at all. Catturd would likely not be allowed into the WHCA because he doesn't cover enough events related to the White House. He spends most of his time contradicting himself and talking about running over his dog.

Ag with kids said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

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.

---

Ok.

So, the Trump admin should say they are eligible to be picked.

Then never pick them.

---

That won't fly either, but I think you know that. That was addressed in the ruling.

HTownAg98 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

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 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.

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.

---

Newsmax is a member of the WHCA, and I don't believe they're left wing at all. Catturd would likely not be allowed into the WHCA because he doesn't cover enough events related to the White House. He spends most of his time contradicting himself and talking about running over his dog.

---

Nice deflection there. Care to refute the point of the post? Am I wrong in how the game is being played by the leaders of the WHCA?

And if I recall correctly, prior to the WH taking control of the Pool, I don't believe Newsmax was ever included in the Press Pool.

jrdaustin said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

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 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.

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.

---

Newsmax is a member of the WHCA, and I don't believe they're left wing at all. Catturd would likely not be allowed into the WHCA because he doesn't cover enough events related to the White House. He spends most of his time contradicting himself and talking about running over his dog.

---

Nice deflection there. Care to refute the point of the post? Am I wrong in how the game is being played by the leaders of the WHCA?

And if I recall correctly, prior to the WH taking control of the Pool, I don't believe Newsmax was ever included in the Press Pool.

---

The point of your post was that the WHCA is a leftist organization, and while they certainly lean left, there are numerous right leaning journalism organizations that are part of their ranks.

Newsmax was part of the WHCA going back to at least 2021. They sponsored getting Sean Spicer a membership into the WHCA, but later withdrew it.

Quote:

---

"Newsmax already had two correspondents that work with the White House press corps," a Newsmax spokesperson said in a statement to Politico, noting that Emerald Robinson and John Gizzi serve as the organization's primary White House correspondents.

---

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/535855-newsmax-rescinds-spicers-white-house-correspondents-association-application/

This is such a stupid ruling. I'm not surprised the lawyers and wanna be lawyers are all in on it. They consider themselves too clever. And by that I mean, they will use absolutely ******ed, twisted "logic" to justify an opinion. Like the idiotic right to privacy that the numbskulls on SCOTUS made up to justify abortion. By this logic, if the AP showed up and stated "Black people are inferior and should be exterminated" at every press conference, shouted it out like all of them shout their questions, they could not be tossed based on that.

I don't see how anyone can tell who a President can have in his "pool".

AP, News Max, DNC, CNN ....doesn't matter.

If Trump wanted only my son's Kindergarten class as "journalists" in the pool....it's his F-ing pool.

HTownAg98 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

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.

---

Ok.

So, the Trump admin should say they are eligible to be picked.

Then never pick them.

---

That won't fly either, but I think you know that. That was addressed in the ruling.

---

Well, that was really just a joke, fwiw...

But...

Pick them every once in awhile then - proof they're not banned. But they don't deserve access all the time if others aren't getting access either...

HTownAg98 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

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 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.

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.

---

Newsmax is a member of the WHCA, and I don't believe they're left wing at all. Catturd would likely not be allowed into the WHCA because he doesn't cover enough events related to the White House. He spends most of his time contradicting himself and talking about running over his dog.

---

Nice deflection there. Care to refute the point of the post? Am I wrong in how the game is being played by the leaders of the WHCA?

And if I recall correctly, prior to the WH taking control of the Pool, I don't believe Newsmax was ever included in the Press Pool.

---

The point of your post was that the WHCA is a leftist organization, and while they certainly lean left, there are numerous right leaning journalism organizations that are part of their ranks.

Newsmax was part of the WHCA going back to at least 2021. They sponsored getting Sean Spicer a membership into the WHCA, but later withdrew it.

Quote:

---

"Newsmax already had two correspondents that work with the White House press corps," a Newsmax spokesperson said in a statement to Politico, noting that Emerald Robinson and John Gizzi serve as the organization's primary White House correspondents.

---

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/535855-newsmax-rescinds-spicers-white-house-correspondents-association-application/

---

I've editied my original post, as you're gravitating to the WHCA itself, rather than the Press Pool, which as you know are two distictly different entities. The lawsuit itself was over the Press Pool, correct?

I willfully acknowledge that I was in error by not deliniating that in the original post.

My original point stands.

BMX Bandit said:

---

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.

---

Funny thing is that the harm claimed by the AP was the financial harm to the lawyer representing the AP. And the AP supposedly losing money. They cannot state that their words or publication of such words were silenced.

Please prove to me where keeping the AP out of the press room or off AF1 prevents the AP from monitoring, publishing and discussing current events. Will hang up and listen.

in that scenario, they could be kicked out for disrupting the press conference and not asking a question.

if they were excluded from attending because they ran stories saying black people were inferior, then that would violate the first amendment.

its not twisted logic. its simple. most of the commentary of people complaining about it don't even know what the ruling said (not talking about you, as your post seems to indicate you do understand the basic premise of it).


the first amendment does not allow the government to punish you for free speech. this is an incredibly conservative judge that wrote this opinion.

It's a very interesting case to say the least. If the facts were that the reporters were barred by administration from attending a press conference at a public place, this would be an open and shut case.

HTownAg98 said:

---

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.

---

Cornelius v. NAACP Leg. Def. Fund, 473 U.S. 788 (1985)

Quote:

---

Control over access to a nonpublic forum can be based on subject matter and speaker identity so long as the distinctions drawn are reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum and are viewpoint-neutral. Perry Education Assn., supra, at 460 U. S. 49. Although a speaker may be excluded from a nonpublic forum if he wishes to address a topic not encompassed within the purpose of the forum, see Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights, 418 U. S. 298 (1974), or if he is not a member of the class of speakers for whose especial benefit the forum was created, see Perry Education Assn., supra, the government violates the First Amendment when it denies access to a speaker solely to suppress the point of view he espouses on an otherwise includible subject.

---

---

Yep. There are restrictions. The press corps keeps their undesirables in the cloak room. Funny how that works and no one tries to tear down the republic with frivolous lawsuits. I recall the first time this was brought to light was the chairs and access were being rearranged. But forum shopping by lawyers along with those juicy select tidbits that only tell part of the story are always in the leftists toolkit.

HTownAg98 said:

---

Newsmax is a member of the WHCA,

---

And they were forced into the cloak room and rarely allowed to ask questions during Obama's or Biden's presidency.

Before anyone starts fuming, I am not a fan of Newsmax...

bobbranco said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

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.

---

Funny thing is that the harm claimed by the AP was the financial harm to the lawyer representing the AP. And the AP supposedly losing money. They cannot state that their words or publication of such words were silenced.

Please prove to me where keeping the AP out of the press room or off AF1 prevents the AP from monitoring, publishing and discussing current events. Will hang up and listen.

---

Before you make another post, please go read the opinion. Your question is answered there. They not only claimed financial harm, but constitutional harm as well. Please read it, it's not hard to comprehend.

Look... The WHOLE case is just this ONE point.

The US Government is trying to COMPEL speech from a news organization. And if they don't do what the US Government says, the US Government will keep them from AF1 and West Wing.

Again... This is a really EASY 1st Amendment violation.

Trump and the Admin are not infallible. Sometimes if it is wrong, it needs to be fixed. This is one of those times.

This could have just be Trump using this to send a message. If so, great, time to move on no one else pressed their luck.

bobbranco said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Newsmax is a member of the WHCA,

---

And they were forced into the cloak room and rarely allowed to ask questions during Obama's or Biden's presidency.

Before anyone starts fuming, I am not a fan of Newsmax...

---

Citations please. But again, no one is entitled to be called on. The AP or the judge never say that.

It costs me money for the WH to fight this one.

Let them in and ignore them.

HTownAg98 said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Newsmax is a member of the WHCA,

---

And they were forced into the cloak room and rarely allowed to ask questions during Obama's or Biden's presidency.

Before anyone starts fuming, I am not a fan of Newsmax...

---

Citations please. But again, no one is entitled to be called on. The AP or the judge never say that.

---

There it is. You and the judge said it "No one is entitled to be called on." Great job at destroying your arguments.

Therefore no one is entitled a chair in the press room. The AP can clearly do it's job by monitoring a feed and submitting questions to the press secretary. All the other members of the press that are excluded from the press briefings are forced to monitor and submit questions.

bobbranco said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Newsmax is a member of the WHCA,

---

And they were forced into the cloak room and rarely allowed to ask questions during Obama's or Biden's presidency.

Before anyone starts fuming, I am not a fan of Newsmax...

---

Citations please. But again, no one is entitled to be called on. The AP or the judge never say that.

---

There it is. You and the judge said it "No one is entitled to be called on." Great job at destroying your arguments.

Therefore no one is entitled a chair in the press room. The AP can clearly do it's job by monitoring a feed and submitting questions to the press secretary. All the other members of the press that are excluded from the press briefings are forced to monitor and submit questions.

---

I want to find who taught you logic and slap them for doing such a terrible job. Then I want to find who taught you civics and slap them too. Nowhere did I say that the AP was entitled to be called on, and I've stated numerous times that is the case. That you're just now catching it and fail to understand what that means is not my problem. There have been numerous people, some who are way smarter than I am, that have told you that you're wrong about this. Why you keep trying to argue this, I don't know. And I can tell that you didn't bother to read the citation from the Cornelius case (that's a SCOTUS case from the mid-80s), because it outlines very clearly why they are entitled to a chance at a chair in the room, just like CNN, MSNBC, Breitbart, BBC, Newsmax, OAN, and whoever else have been vetted and is a part of the press pool.

I'm done arguing with you about this for a while, as I have other more important things to do this afternoon than to argue with some random schmuck on the internet who is willfully ignorant about the first amendment. You can read the opinion written by a very conservative judge and educate yourself on why you might be wrong, or you can continue to flail about and wallow around in your wrongness. The choice is yours.

HTownAg98 said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Newsmax is a member of the WHCA,

---

And they were forced into the cloak room and rarely allowed to ask questions during Obama's or Biden's presidency.

Before anyone starts fuming, I am not a fan of Newsmax...

---

Citations please. But again, no one is entitled to be called on. The AP or the judge never say that.

---

There it is. You and the judge said it "No one is entitled to be called on." Great job at destroying your arguments.

Therefore no one is entitled a chair in the press room. The AP can clearly do it's job by monitoring a feed and submitting questions to the press secretary. All the other members of the press that are excluded from the press briefings are forced to monitor and submit questions.

---

I want to find who taught you logic and slap them for doing such a terrible job. Then I want to find who taught you civics and slap them too. Nowhere did I say that the AP was entitled to be called on, and I've stated numerous times that is the case. That you're just now catching it and fail to understand what that means is not my problem. There have been numerous people, some who are way smarter than I am, that have told you that you're wrong about this. Why you keep trying to argue this, I don't know. And I can tell that you didn't bother to read the citation from the Cornelius case (that's a SCOTUS case from the mid-80s), because it outlines very clearly why they are entitled to a chance at a chair in the room, just like CNN, MSNBC, Breitbart, BBC, Newsmax, OAN, and whoever else have been vetted and is a part of the press pool.

I'm done arguing with you about this for a while, as I have other more important things to do this afternoon than to argue with some random schmuck on the internet who is willfully ignorant about the first amendment. You can read the opinion written by a very conservative judge and educate yourself on why you might be wrong, or you can continue to flail about and wallow around in your wrongness. The choice is yours.

---

You stated "no one is entitled to be called on." That would include the AP. You typed it. Did I mischaracterize your statement? I don't care what the AP or judge said because you said it.

ETA:
The AP has been able and capable of documenting events and printing whatever they like. The government is not restricting their thoughts or scribbles.

You didn't, but you still don't get it, and I'll keep saying it even though it doesn't really matter because…wait for it…THAT'S NOT WHY THEY SUED!! The issue that you keep ignoring is that if the White House opens parts of the White House to the press, they cannot ban someone because of viewpoint. Your statement is wrong, because saying they can report from outside the room isn't the same as being in the room. The AP, or anyone else who would be banned from those spaces, is at a disadvantage compared to their peers. Get that part through your thick skull.

HTownAg98 said:

---

You didn't, but you still don't get it, and I'll keep saying it even though it doesn't really matter because…wait for it…THAT'S NOT WHY THEY SUED!! The issue that you keep ignoring is that if the White House opens parts of the White House to the press, they cannot ban someone because of viewpoint. Your statement is wrong, because saying they can report from outside the room isn't the same as being in the room. The AP, or anyone else who would be banned from those spaces, is at a disadvantage compared to their peers. Get that part through your thick skull.

---

Let's be clear, this is some low level district judge that issued an injunction. The matter will be argued further up the chain and I believe contrary to your opinion the matter remains unsettled until all appeals are exhausted. Attack all you want because your opinions do not and have not swayed me. I think the only item that keeps the AP in the press room is the concept of precedent - another screwed up concept of the law that splits the sheets.

The AP is a member of the press corps that is a thousand strong. Yes, they are a wire service. Who cares? That's old media. Complaints by the AP and their shill lawyer were about their access and that access somehow restricted their free speech. I proffer that such limitations do not and never will restrict their right to speech or act as a free press. They can write and publish anything.

bobbranco said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

You didn't, but you still don't get it, and I'll keep saying it even though it doesn't really matter because…wait for it…THAT'S NOT WHY THEY SUED!! The issue that you keep ignoring is that if the White House opens parts of the White House to the press, they cannot ban someone because of viewpoint. Your statement is wrong, because saying they can report from outside the room isn't the same as being in the room. The AP, or anyone else who would be banned from those spaces, is at a disadvantage compared to their peers. Get that part through your thick skull.

---

Let's be clear, this is some low level district judge that issued an injunction. The matter will be argued further up the chain and I believe contrary to your opinion the matter remains unsettled until all appeals are exhausted. Attack all you want because your opinions do not and have not swayed me. I think the only item that keeps the AP in the press room is the concept of precedent - another screwed up concept of the law that splits the sheets.

The AP is a member of the press corps that is a thousand strong. Yes, they are a wire service. Who cares? That's old media. Complaints by the AP and their shill lawyer were about their access and that access somehow restricted their free speech. I proffer that such limitations do not and never will restrict their right to speech or act as a free press. They can write and publish anything.

---

The access is not important to this, it is a byproduct.

It all boils down to the government trying to compel speech. The government can't do that because of the 1st amendment.

Government is breaking the constitution by giving out a punishment for not saying what they want them to say.

That is it...

ETA I don't know that Trump will appeal. The juice in this is not worth the squeeze.

will25u said:

---

The access is not important to this, it is a byproduct.

It all boils down to the government trying to compel speech. The government can't do that because of the 1st amendment.

Government is breaking the constitution by giving out a punishment for not saying what they want them to say.

That is it...

ETA I don't know that Trump will appeal. The juice in this is not worth the squeeze.

---

Give me a break. Punishment was loss of an invitation? Too bad.

How about the AP accurately report the news and not publish propaganda?

bobbranco said:

---

will25u said:

---

The access is not important to this, it is a byproduct.

It all boils down to the government trying to compel speech. The government can't do that because of the 1st amendment.

Government is breaking the constitution by giving out a punishment for not saying what they want them to say.

That is it...

ETA I don't know that Trump will appeal. The juice in this is not worth the squeeze.

---

Give me a break. Punishment was loss of an invitation? Too bad.

How about the AP accurately report the news and not publish propaganda?

---

I totally agree with you that they are propaganda fake news.

But the constitution gives them the freedom of speech to say whatever they want with few exceptions.

It is a punishment.

Would you be OK with all press having to say "Long Live Biden, may he reign supreme." Or they couldn't get in the the press conferences?

Compelled speech is an easy violation of the 1st amendment.

This case is not some grey area. To me it is pretty black and white.

Don't blindly think everything a politician does is correct. Sometimes the get it wrong.

will25u said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

will25u said:

---

The access is not important to this, it is a byproduct.

It all boils down to the government trying to compel speech. The government can't do that because of the 1st amendment.

Government is breaking the constitution by giving out a punishment for not saying what they want them to say.

That is it...

ETA I don't know that Trump will appeal. The juice in this is not worth the squeeze.

---

Give me a break. Punishment was loss of an invitation? Too bad.

How about the AP accurately report the news and not publish propaganda?

---

I totally agree with you that they are propaganda fake news.

But the constitution gives them the freedom of speech to say whatever they want with few exceptions.

It is a punishment.

Would you be OK with all press having to say "Long Live Biden, may he reign supreme." Or they couldn't get in the the press conferences?

Compelled speech is an easy violation of the 1st amendment.

This case is not some grey area. To me it is pretty black and white.

Don't blindly think everything a politician does is correct. Sometimes the get it wrong.

---

It is a grey area. I don't agree that it's black and white. Because you say the politicians get it wrong. The press does get it wrong and has been wrong for years. Yes that pen is mighty, swift, and strong. It's might , swiftness, and strength is exhibited daily by the continued promotion of the class, gender, and race marxism encouraged by the propagandists. It's sad that the over educated have glommed onto this corrupt pied piper.

This is the last I will say about it. Since we are obviously talking past each other.

If you have the power to take something away from someone for not doing what you want them to do, that is a punishment.

The Whitehouse took away APs privilege to be in the West Wing and AF1 for not calling it the Gulf of America. THEY PUBLICLY ADMITTED IT.

The government is in conflict with the constitution if they try to force someone to say something against their will.

I am one of the staunchest Trump supporters here. But Trump is not adhering to the constitution by punishing free speech. Even if you/I detest it.

And btw, I am not highly educated like most of you Ags here. I just inherited my love of Texas A&M from my Father.

IANAL nor do I play one in TexAgs.

Their participation in the press pool (who BTW has their own group that somehow decides upon who gets to be a 'member' & sit in on the press conferences) is afforded solely by invitation; an invitation is a privilege, NOT a right.

The AP is still afforded access to the information provided by a conference, & they're free to say/ write whatever they want without the Trump administration being able to control &/or suppress sucht; BUT, denying the AP a seat, while petty, is not an infringement of the AP's "rights", & I'm willing to bet good money that they've disallowed others 'membership' in their press club, so this entire scenario is cathartic karma!

Ag in Tiger Country said:

---

Their participation in the press pool (who BTW has their own group that somehow decides upon who gets to be a 'member' & sit in on the press conferences) is afforded solely by invitation; an invitation is a privilege, NOT a right.

The AP is still afforded access to the information provided by a conference, & they're free to say/ write whatever they want without the Trump administration being able to control &/or suppress sucht; BUT, denying the AP a seat, while petty, is not an infringement of the AP's "rights", & I'm willing to bet good money that they've disallowed others 'membership' in their press club, so this entire scenario is cathartic karma!

---

Y'all are not understanding this whole situation.

THE ABILITY OR INABILITY TO BE IN A ROOM IS NOT THE ISSUE.

The White House doesn't have to EVER allow the AP in any room. It is a privilege.

The ONLY thing that has any bearing here is...

Did the White House restrict access to said room because the AP will not call it the Gulf of America.

The answer is... YES! They admitted to it!

The White House in a press conference stated that they were not going to allow AP reports into the West Wing/AF1 because they won't call it the Gulf of America.

The US Government in this case is trying to compel the AP to say something they don't want to say. The AP doesn't have to call it the Gulf of America if they so choose, and Trump/White House is going against the constitution by infringing on their right to free speech.

I honestly don't know how y'all are not seeing this as the government trying to make the AP say something they obviously don't want to say. And punishing them for not saying it.

I'm kinda astonished. This is extremely fundamental free speech infringement and quite a few people can not comprehend it.

I'm done. At least for tonight. Y'all have a good evening.

will25u said:

---

Ag in Tiger Country said:

---

Their participation in the press pool (who BTW has their own group that somehow decides upon who gets to be a 'member' & sit in on the press conferences) is afforded solely by invitation; an invitation is a privilege, NOT a right.

The AP is still afforded access to the information provided by a conference, & they're free to say/ write whatever they want without the Trump administration being able to control &/or suppress sucht; BUT, denying the AP a seat, while petty, is not an infringement of the AP's "rights", & I'm willing to bet good money that they've disallowed others 'membership' in their press club, so this entire scenario is cathartic karma!

---

Y'all are not understanding this whole situation.

THE ABILITY OR INABILITY TO BE IN A ROOM IS NOT THE ISSUE.

The White House doesn't have to EVER allow the AP in any room. It is a privilege.

The ONLY thing that has any bearing here is...

Did the White House restrict access to said room because the AP will not call it the Gulf of America.

The answer is... YES! They admitted to it!

The White House in a press conference stated that they were not going to allow AP reports into the West Wing/AF1 because they won't call it the Gulf of America.

The US Government in this case is trying to compel the AP to say something they don't want to say. The AP doesn't have to call it the Gulf of America if they so choose, and Trump/White House is going against the constitution by infringing on their right to free speech.

I honestly don't know how y'all are not seeing this as the government trying to make the AP say something they obviously don't want to say. And punishing them for not saying it.

I'm kinda astonished. This is extremely fundamental free speech infringement and quite a few people can not comprehend it.

I'm done. At least for tonight. Y'all have a good evening.

---

A leftist getting upset about someone compelling others to call something by a new name or terminology …

Oh my…

LOL

First time being called a leftist. Always a first time for everything I guess.

People so easily throw that around if you have a counter view against something Trump does.

I'm just calling a spade a spade and not automatically siding with Trump on every little thing.

But you keep on keepin' on, and I'll do the same.

bobbranco said:

---

will25u said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

will25u said:

---

The access is not important to this, it is a byproduct.

It all boils down to the government trying to compel speech. The government can't do that because of the 1st amendment.

Government is breaking the constitution by giving out a punishment for not saying what they want them to say.

That is it...

ETA I don't know that Trump will appeal. The juice in this is not worth the squeeze.

---

Give me a break. Punishment was loss of an invitation? Too bad.

How about the AP accurately report the news and not publish propaganda?

---

I totally agree with you that they are propaganda fake news.

But the constitution gives them the freedom of speech to say whatever they want with few exceptions.

It is a punishment.

Would you be OK with all press having to say "Long Live Biden, may he reign supreme." Or they couldn't get in the the press conferences?

Compelled speech is an easy violation of the 1st amendment.

This case is not some grey area. To me it is pretty black and white.

Don't blindly think everything a politician does is correct. Sometimes the get it wrong.

---

It is a grey area. I don't agree that it's black and white. Because you say the politicians get it wrong. The press does get it wrong and has been wrong for years. Yes that pen is mighty, swift, and strong. It's might , swiftness, and strength is exhibited daily by the continued promotion of the class, gender, and race marxism encouraged by the propagandists. It's sad that the over educated have glommed onto this corrupt pied piper.

---

The press is allowed to get "get it wrong". That's freedom of the press AND freedom speech all rolled up in one.

Trump should have just said they were banned. Period. Full stop.

There would have been no legal basis to sue him on.

Well as an attorney, let me ask you this:

What HARM or DAMAGES has the AP sustained? They are still privy to what was said in the briefings. Also, they can still submit their own questions to the White House directly, just not during a briefing, which even if in attendance wouldn't mean they're guaranteed to receive an answer to any question they may ask. Meanwhile, the Trump administration is under no obligation to answer their questions at ANY time!! Finally, they can still ***** & moan about Trump- they just can't do it while sitting at the "cool kid's table", which is by invitation only & isn't a protected liberty/ right.

Ag in Tiger Country said:

---

Well as an attorney, let me ask you this:

What HARM or DAMAGES has the AP sustained? They are still privy to what was said in the briefings. Also, they can still submit their own questions to the White House directly, just not during a briefing, which even if in attendance wouldn't mean they're guaranteed to receive an answer to any question they may ask. Meanwhile, the Trump administration is under no obligation to answer their questions at ANY time!! Finally, they can still ***** & moan about Trump- they just can't do it while sitting at the "cool kid's table", which is by invitation only & isn't a protected liberty/ right.

---

The harm is to their constitutional right to free speech. That is it.

AGAIN the access to the room, or being called on etc is only important to this case because it was the punishment for not calling it the Gulf of America.

If the White House just implemented it without admitting that that was a punishment we wouldn't be here. But that is still skirting the constitution because you are still doing it even if they don't know about it.

Not an attorney btw. But in this case, it is common sense enough for my layman mind to talk coherently about.