I control the speech that comes out of my mouth. Does this mean I am violating the first amendment?

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

captkirk said:

---

Freedom of speech is protected. Access to POTUS is not.

---

It is if you have it, and it's revoked for an arbitrary and capricious reason.

jrdaustin said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

captkirk said:

---

Freedom of speech is protected. Access to POTUS is not.

---

It is if you have it, and it's revoked for an arbitrary and capricious reason.

---

I'm not comfortable with that interpretation. Who determines what is arbitrary and capricious? The opposition? News access should be for those that actually report the news, and perhaps an occasional critical take.

Dedicated opposition media that is composed of activists rather than journalists have no first amendment right to antagonize and vocalize opposition to the POTUS.

Access is a privilege, not a right. If AP wants to oppose the president at every turn, they have that right, but they can do it from the cheap seats... Especially when they cover so hard for the opposition. Again, they're no longer news reporters. They're activists.

---

THAT. BINGO.

Maybe a counter from WH could be --- "AP can attend, but they must send a young new gun that is more interested in reporting than serving left activism". That way AP does have its `access.'

The more I think about this, the angrier I get. AP, Acosta, CNN and others chose to sit quietly, be polite, and allow the previous Press Secretary to gaslight the American people with nary a question or challenge. Time and time again.

The same bunch of people didn't complain a whit when they had almost zero access to the non compos mentis occupant of the Oval Office. And again, nary a challenge when he spent half his presidency sitting on the beach.

Now, the expectation is that they should have complete CONSTITUTIONAL access to the Oval, simply so they can obstruct and oppose every word that comes out of this President's mouth.

And it's insulting that some legal minds on this board will argue that there's some sort of legal basis to this.... As if no one will recognize the hypocricy of the position.

WOW!

Karoline Leavitt just announced on the stage at CPAC that the AP is suing her personally over being removed from the approved media list. pic.twitter.com/diJ4IKcrWI

— Brigitte Gabriel (@ACTBrigitte) February 21, 2025

jrdaustin said:

---

The more I think about this, the angrier I get. AP, Acosta, CNN and others chose to sit quietly, be polite, and allow the previous Press Secretary to gaslight the American people with nary a question or challenge. Time and time again.

The same bunch of people didn't complain a whit when they had almost zero access to the non compos mentis occupant of the Oval Office. And again, nary a challenge when he spent half his presidency sitting on the beach.

Now, the expectation is that they should have complete CONSTITUTIONAL access to the Oval, simply so they can obstruct and oppose every word that comes out of this President's mouth.

And it's insulting that some legal minds on this board will argue that there's some sort of legal basis to this.... As if no one will recognize the hypocricy of the position.

---

Given what they are trying to do to Karoline, is there such thing as suing AP or similar for COVERING-UP a story, for deliberate fraud? What you describe is true -- it should be possible to punish false performance of their role.

They're suing her in her official capacity. Bridgette can't read.

I'm wondering when the protections the press has historically had regarding malice are going to fall.

There is now multiple cases, over multiple presidencies, that many in the press have shown that their actions are without a doubt malicious towards Republican administrations.

It goes beyond bias in reporting. It's actual intereference and intent to harm the operations of the Executive Branch, and they should be held accountable for it.

Again, I have no problem with being in opposition to this administration. They're free to report whatever they want, but they shouldn't have unimpeded acces to create havoc and disrupt day to day operaBut we're at that point right now.

jrdaustin said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

captkirk said:

---

Freedom of speech is protected. Access to POTUS is not.

---

It is if you have it, and it's revoked for an arbitrary and capricious reason.

---

I'm not comfortable with that interpretation. Who determines what is arbitrary and capricious? The opposition? News access should be for those that actually report the news, and perhaps an occasional critical take.

Dedicated opposition media that is composed of activists rather than journalists have no first amendment right to antagonize and vocalize opposition to the POTUS.

Access is a privilege, not a right. If AP wants to oppose the president at every turn, they have that right, but they can do it from the cheap seats... Especially when they cover so hard for the opposition. Again, they're no longer news reporters. They're activists.

---

So when Jordan Conradson, a reporter for The Gateway Pundit, was barred by Maricopa County for asking tough questions, and Maricopa's other reasoning was because Conradson wasn't telling the truth, that would have been ok with you? Fortunately, the Ninth Circuit jumped in and said hell no.
The more I read about this, the more I think AP has a pretty decent shot at prevailing.

jrdaustin said:

---

And just like Acosta, AP is now verified as trying to BE the news rather than report the news.

Suing the press secretary personally. What a farce.

---

As alleged in the complaint, she's the one that told the AP they were banned. AP has to sue her.

HTownAg98 said:

---

They're suing her in her official capacity. Bridgette can't read.

---

True, but I've read the first three paragraphs of the suit, and I'm already laughing so hard at the ridiculousness of their assertions that I'm going to have to put the milk away before I read any more.

Some excerpts:

1. The White House has ordered The Associated Press to use certain words in its coverage or else face an indefinite denial of access.

Well that's one way of putting it. Another way might be the direct ignoring of an executive order in an in-your-face way to voice an opinion rather than report the news.

2. The AP therefore brings this action to vindicate its rights to the editorial independence guaranteed by the United States Constitution and to prevent the Executive Branch from coercing journalists to report the news using only government-approved language.

Nothing is stopping them from reporting the news however they want to. Access to the Oval or Air Force One is not required to spout their opposition to this President.

3. The AP is one of the world's oldest and most trusted news organizations. Since its inception in 1846, the AP, which is a not-for-profit organization, has been known for its accurate, factual, and nonpartisan reporting...

Yeah, Right. Perhaps they were known for it then, but they've squandered that reputation.

jrdaustin said:

---

I'm wondering when the protections the press has historically had regarding malice are going to fall.

There is now multiple cases, over multiple presidencies, that many in the press have shown that their actions are without a doubt malicious towards Republican administrations.

It goes beyond bias in reporting. It's actual intereference and intent to harm the operations of the Executive Branch, and they should be held accountable for it.

Again, I have no problem with being in opposition to this administration. They're free to report whatever they want, but they shouldn't have unimpeded acces to create havoc and disrupt day to day operaBut we're at that point right now.

---

Correct. Their interference easily exceeds, let alone matches, any of the supposed foreign interference from such as their favorite scapegoat, Russia. Or China for that matter.

HTownAg98 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

captkirk said:

---

Freedom of speech is protected. Access to POTUS is not.

---

It is if you have it, and it's revoked for an arbitrary and capricious reason.

---

I'm not comfortable with that interpretation. Who determines what is arbitrary and capricious? The opposition? News access should be for those that actually report the news, and perhaps an occasional critical take.

Dedicated opposition media that is composed of activists rather than journalists have no first amendment right to antagonize and vocalize opposition to the POTUS.

Access is a privilege, not a right. If AP wants to oppose the president at every turn, they have that right, but they can do it from the cheap seats... Especially when they cover so hard for the opposition. Again, they're no longer news reporters. They're activists.

---

So when Jordan Conradson, a reporter for The Gateway Pundit, was barred by Maricopa County for asking tough questions, and Maricopa's other reasoning was because Conradson wasn't telling the truth, that would have been ok with you? Fortunately, the Ninth Circuit jumped in and said hell no.
The more I read about this, the more I think AP has a pretty decent shot at prevailing.

---

You should know better. This isn't about asking tough questions. It's about all-day every-day opposition to this administration.

If the AP wants to advocate, they can do it all day. But they should report the news accurately if they want to ride on the President's airplane.

Quote:

---

The Associated Press (AP) has implemented several rules that some journalists and commentators find unusual or overly restrictive. For instance, the AP Stylebook has rulesagainst using derogatory terms like "crazy," "crazed," "nuts," or "deranged" unless they are part of a quotation essential to the story. This rule aims to promote respectful language and avoid stigmatizing mental health issues.12

Another rule that has drawn criticism is the decision to capitalize "Black" when referring to people but not "white," reflecting a nuanced approach to racial terminology.

---

Controlling speech like the above ?? Directing people to use racist speech rules where you capitalize " Black " in black people, but F honkeys. You don't even think about capitalizing " White " in white people. The corrupt marxist at AP can take their suit and shove it where the sun doesn't shine!!!

jrdaustin said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

captkirk said:

---

Freedom of speech is protected. Access to POTUS is not.

---

It is if you have it, and it's revoked for an arbitrary and capricious reason.

---

I'm not comfortable with that interpretation. Who determines what is arbitrary and capricious? The opposition? News access should be for those that actually report the news, and perhaps an occasional critical take.

Dedicated opposition media that is composed of activists rather than journalists have no first amendment right to antagonize and vocalize opposition to the POTUS.

Access is a privilege, not a right. If AP wants to oppose the president at every turn, they have that right, but they can do it from the cheap seats... Especially when they cover so hard for the opposition. Again, they're no longer news reporters. They're activists.

---

So when Jordan Conradson, a reporter for The Gateway Pundit, was barred by Maricopa County for asking tough questions, and Maricopa's other reasoning was because Conradson wasn't telling the truth, that would have been ok with you? Fortunately, the Ninth Circuit jumped in and said hell no.
The more I read about this, the more I think AP has a pretty decent shot at prevailing.

---

You should know better. This isn't about asking tough questions. It's about all-day every-day opposition to this administration.

If the AP wants to advocate, they can do it all day. But they should report the news accurately if they want to ride on the President's airplane.

---

Unfortunately for you, the courts have said differently. The Gateway Pundit case at its heart was because Maricopa County felt that Gateway Pundit wasn't reporting the truth, so they banned them. The Ninth Circuit *****-slapped them back into reality. https://randazza.com/wp-content/uploads/Gateway-Pundit-CA9-Order.pdf

HTownAg98 said:

---

captkirk said:

---

Freedom of speech is protected. Access to POTUS is not.

---

It is if you have it, and it's revoked for an arbitrary and capricious reason.

---

I guess we'll see.

Here's another interesting, albiet unrelated, angle.

22. In all of its permutations the press pool consists of, at minimum, three wire reporters (one each from the AP, Reuters, and Bloomberg), four photographers (one each from the AP, Reuters, AFP, and The New York Times), three network television journalists, a radio correspondent, and at least one print reporter. Membership in the pool is determined at the sole discretion of the White House Correspondents Association (WHCA) and the press corps itself.

So the makeup of the press pool is a self determined group of wire reportes, network "journalists", one radio correspondent, and at least one print reporter. Membership determine at the SOLE DISCRETION of the WHCA.

So independent media, the podcast journalists, the youtube journalists, and any other sort of alternative news sources - who's ratings now exceed traditional media - need not apply for access to the press pool.

So where do they go for the violations of their rights to access? The WHCA? Yeah. Right.

This is long overdue to be reformed.

HTownAg98 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

captkirk said:

---

Freedom of speech is protected. Access to POTUS is not.

---

It is if you have it, and it's revoked for an arbitrary and capricious reason.

---

I'm not comfortable with that interpretation. Who determines what is arbitrary and capricious? The opposition? News access should be for those that actually report the news, and perhaps an occasional critical take.

Dedicated opposition media that is composed of activists rather than journalists have no first amendment right to antagonize and vocalize opposition to the POTUS.

Access is a privilege, not a right. If AP wants to oppose the president at every turn, they have that right, but they can do it from the cheap seats... Especially when they cover so hard for the opposition. Again, they're no longer news reporters. They're activists.

---

So when Jordan Conradson, a reporter for The Gateway Pundit, was barred by Maricopa County for asking tough questions, and Maricopa's other reasoning was because Conradson wasn't telling the truth, that would have been ok with you? Fortunately, the Ninth Circuit jumped in and said hell no.
The more I read about this, the more I think AP has a pretty decent shot at prevailing.

---

You should know better. This isn't about asking tough questions. It's about all-day every-day opposition to this administration.

If the AP wants to advocate, they can do it all day. But they should report the news accurately if they want to ride on the President's airplane.

---

Unfortunately for you, the courts have said differently. The Gateway Pundit case at its heart was because Maricopa County felt that Gateway Pundit wasn't reporting the truth, so they banned them. The Ninth Circuit *****-slapped them back into reality. https://randazza.com/wp-content/uploads/Gateway-Pundit-CA9-Order.pdf

---

There's a difference here. Maricopa County was trying to outright ban GP. The AP is not 100% banned. They just don't get the special access to the Oval or AF1.

AP doesn't get to hound the POTUS every time he meets the media. Again, there is ample evidence that the AP is not reporting in good faith. They're approaching EVERYTHING in opposition to the administration.

That's bias. And it's not protected.

jrdaustin said:

---

Interesting. The AP is NOT denied access to the briefing room. They still have access to the Press Secretary's daily briefs and official press conferences.

It's simply access to the Oval and AF1 that they're being denied.

---

This definitely adds an interesting wrinkle if there is no "hard pass" given like with the Acosta case

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

They'll attack anything he does.

---

End of thread…

The AP does nothing but spew lies from the left. They silence, fight, and mock conservatives at every turn.
They can **** off!

There was an article or segment a month or so ago about the WHCA. They are not affiliated with the White House if I recall and sort of ran the good ol boys club and excluded outlets like OAN.

Think it may have been them or Newsmax that said they would not let them use the little green tents when the weather was bad.

Karoline said that is all bunk and changes were inbound.

As mentioned, the AP has no "right" to their spot and the press has more access than ever.

Another day and another you don't hate the MSM media enough.

ts5641 said:

---

The AP does nothing but spew lies from the left. They silence, fight, and mock conservatives at every turn.
They can **** off!

---

It is obvious in this case that they have signed on to be part of the organized RESISTANCE! to Trump's second term. We know the fascists have literally paid them before now, but this suit was undoubtedly timed to hit the news cycle on a Friday afternoon so it will be "Trump is shutting down free speech" for the entire weekend and particularly on the Sunday shows and without the administration having the ability to state its own case in a significant way before Monday.

Everything the left does is coordinated. They're trying to "Identify the target. Freeze it." according to Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. Saul Alinsky would be as proud as his Lord Satan, George Soros, and Hussein Obama are. .

HTownAg98 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

captkirk said:

---

Freedom of speech is protected. Access to POTUS is not.

---

It is if you have it, and it's revoked for an arbitrary and capricious reason.

---

I'm not comfortable with that interpretation. Who determines what is arbitrary and capricious? The opposition? News access should be for those that actually report the news, and perhaps an occasional critical take.

Dedicated opposition media that is composed of activists rather than journalists have no first amendment right to antagonize and vocalize opposition to the POTUS.

Access is a privilege, not a right. If AP wants to oppose the president at every turn, they have that right, but they can do it from the cheap seats... Especially when they cover so hard for the opposition. Again, they're no longer news reporters. They're activists.

---

So when Jordan Conradson, a reporter for The Gateway Pundit, was barred by Maricopa County for asking tough questions, and Maricopa's other reasoning was because Conradson wasn't telling the truth, that would have been ok with you? Fortunately, the Ninth Circuit jumped in and said hell no.
The more I read about this, the more I think AP has a pretty decent shot at prevailing.

---

You should know better. This isn't about asking tough questions. It's about all-day every-day opposition to this administration.

If the AP wants to advocate, they can do it all day. But they should report the news accurately if they want to ride on the President's airplane.

---

Unfortunately for you, the courts have said differently. The Gateway Pundit case at its heart was because Maricopa County felt that Gateway Pundit wasn't reporting the truth, so they banned them. The Ninth Circuit *****-slapped them back into reality. https://randazza.com/wp-content/uploads/Gateway-Pundit-CA9-Order.pdf

---

That case has no precedence here.

Logos Stick said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

captkirk said:

---

Freedom of speech is protected. Access to POTUS is not.

---

It is if you have it, and it's revoked for an arbitrary and capricious reason.

---

I'm not comfortable with that interpretation. Who determines what is arbitrary and capricious? The opposition? News access should be for those that actually report the news, and perhaps an occasional critical take.

Dedicated opposition media that is composed of activists rather than journalists have no first amendment right to antagonize and vocalize opposition to the POTUS.

Access is a privilege, not a right. If AP wants to oppose the president at every turn, they have that right, but they can do it from the cheap seats... Especially when they cover so hard for the opposition. Again, they're no longer news reporters. They're activists.

---

So when Jordan Conradson, a reporter for The Gateway Pundit, was barred by Maricopa County for asking tough questions, and Maricopa's other reasoning was because Conradson wasn't telling the truth, that would have been ok with you? Fortunately, the Ninth Circuit jumped in and said hell no.
The more I read about this, the more I think AP has a pretty decent shot at prevailing.

---

You should know better. This isn't about asking tough questions. It's about all-day every-day opposition to this administration.

If the AP wants to advocate, they can do it all day. But they should report the news accurately if they want to ride on the President's airplane.

---

Unfortunately for you, the courts have said differently. The Gateway Pundit case at its heart was because Maricopa County felt that Gateway Pundit wasn't reporting the truth, so they banned them. The Ninth Circuit *****-slapped them back into reality. https://randazza.com/wp-content/uploads/Gateway-Pundit-CA9-Order.pdf

---

That case has no precedence here.

---

The attorney that handled the Gateway Pundit case says you're wrong. https://randazza.com/trump-violates-the-first-amendment-with-his-swipe-at-the-associated-press/

The folks at Fire.org that have more institutional knowledge of the first amendment in their pinkies than this whole board put together also think you're wrong. https://www.thefire.org/news/white-house-barring-ap-press-events-violates-first-amendment

There was no decision in that case. How can it be used as precedent? Makes zero sense.

Which case?

AF1 and the Oval only hold so many people. Why does AP feel entitled to always be in the room?

Trump can choose the attendees. I could see a first amendment article if he said "only that son of a ***** Peter Doocy can come in" then that is one thing.

The AP showed disrespect to the office and it is perfectly acceptable to ensure they don't make the invite list for the time being.

Heck, I remember way back when Biden was POTUS he would select certain reporters, almost never if not never them being from "unfriendly" media.

Did that violate the 1st? Maybe we should ask those fire people who have no direct experience in who gets allowed into limited WH press events.

Pundit