MidRatsAg said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

They have not been silenced, so there is no "violation of first amendment rights". To say so shows a very poor understanding of freedom of speech and press - as the FFs intended and as the people of the United States have intended and supported.

The comment about eroding trust in the executive is pure hooey. Seriously? No one can type that and think they are making an honest take.

Trump provides more public access and insight into his presidency, his entire administration, the White House, all of it. Yet somehow having Caitlin Collin's from CNN in the room ensures public trust in Trump?

Seriously?


Seriously?

---

I do think there's a question. The D.C. Circuit court has specifically held that once the White House establishes press facilities and access for journalists, the First Amendment protections apply and prohibit content-based exclusion.

Quote:

---

At the core of the Press Clause is the right to publish without requiring prior government approval. Although licensing systems were a common form of prior restraint when early conceptions of freedom of the press were debated in England, a modern equivalent is the use of government-imposed criteria to determine which media representatives may attend press conferences and briefings. When the government controls who has access to information, it effectively controls who is able to publish that information.

---

---

You DO know that is an amicus brief, right? Not a ruling? It's an advocacy piece for one side of the case.

HTownAg98 said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

The Cherokeen Herald out of Rusk. Texas had never been given a press pass. Does that mean the good people of Rusk have been denied their constitutional rights?

---

Has The Cherokeen Herald applied for a press pass, and do they meet the content neutral requirements that are in place to get a press pass?
That's quite a dumb argument you have.

---

Do CNN, MSNow, etc?

jrdaustin said:

---

MidRatsAg said:

---

Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

---

Denying office space in no way infringes upon their right to write, publish, or air their opinions.

---

But when the government creates a public forum or access program, excluding participants because of their viewpoints can raise a First Amendment question.

---

I think you're on a slippery slope with this argument, because you're limiting the definition of "excluding participants".

Why? The Biden administration allowed opposing media into the room, but only allowed questions from compliant media that had previously agreed to ask pre-approved questions in which answers, along with a picture of the reporter Biden was to call upon, were written on a piece of paper for Biden to read from.

I would argue that anyone not on that piece of paper was "excluded" under your definition.

Yet, there was zero outrage from the members of the media that were politically aligned with the administration.

I'm sick of the hypocrisy.

---

I agree that Biden had preselected reporters to call on. I don't think that he only answered questions from compliant media, and I don't know of any evidence that suggests the media's questions required pre-approval but I think they might have been required to submit topics they might ask bout. And that isn't unique to Biden, the current administration does this as well.

What's the status of TASS and PRAVDA for those briefings?

jrdaustin said:

---

MidRatsAg said:

---

Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

---

Denying office space in no way infringes upon their right to write, publish, or air their opinions.

---

But when the government creates a public forum or access program, excluding participants because of their viewpoints can raise a First Amendment question.

---

I think you're on a slippery slope with this argument, because you're limiting the definition of "excluding participants".

Why? The Biden administration allowed opposing media into the room, but only allowed questions from compliant media that had previously agreed to ask pre-approved questions in which answers, along with a picture of the reporter Biden was to call upon, were written on a piece of paper for Biden to read from.

I would argue that anyone not on that piece of paper was "excluded" under your definition.

Yet, there was zero outrage from the members of the media that were politically aligned with the administration.

I'm sick of the hypocrisy.

---

That's not a great argument, because everyone that covers The White House knows you aren't ever guaranteed to be called upon. Karine Jean-Pierre certainly had her favorites, and Karoline Leavitt did as well. Not being called upon is not a violation of the first amendment. Being excluded from the room because you say mean things about the administration is.

MidRatsAg said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

The Cherokeen Herald out of Rusk. Texas had never been given a press pass. Does that mean the good people of Rusk have been denied their constitutional rights?

---

Were they denied based on the content of their reporting?

---

Probably based on scale of reach. There's not enough space to allow ALL media outlets.

Ag with kids said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

The Cherokeen Herald out of Rusk. Texas had never been given a press pass. Does that mean the good people of Rusk have been denied their constitutional rights?

---

Has The Cherokeen Herald applied for a press pass, and do they meet the content neutral requirements that are in place to get a press pass?
That's quite a dumb argument you have.

---

Do CNN, MSNow, etc?

---

Yes, but your outrage is because you don't know what "content neutral" means in this context.

Ag with kids said:

---

MidRatsAg said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

They have not been silenced, so there is no "violation of first amendment rights". To say so shows a very poor understanding of freedom of speech and press - as the FFs intended and as the people of the United States have intended and supported.

The comment about eroding trust in the executive is pure hooey. Seriously? No one can type that and think they are making an honest take.

Trump provides more public access and insight into his presidency, his entire administration, the White House, all of it. Yet somehow having Caitlin Collin's from CNN in the room ensures public trust in Trump?

Seriously?


Seriously?

---

I do think there's a question. The D.C. Circuit court has specifically held that once the White House establishes press facilities and access for journalists, the First Amendment protections apply and prohibit content-based exclusion.

Quote:

---

At the core of the Press Clause is the right to publish without requiring prior government approval. Although licensing systems were a common form of prior restraint when early conceptions of freedom of the press were debated in England, a modern equivalent is the use of government-imposed criteria to determine which media representatives may attend press conferences and briefings. When the government controls who has access to information, it effectively controls who is able to publish that information.

---

---

You DO know that is an amicus brief, right? Not a ruling? It's an advocacy piece for one side of the case.

---

Well that's embarassing, I mixed up my PDFs.

Here's the doc I meant to link with a quote that's actually from the ruling:

Quote:

---

We began by emphasizing that Sherrill's claim "[wa]s not premised upon the assertion that the White House must open its doors to the press, conduct press conferences, or operate press facilities." Id. at 129. But given that "the White House has voluntarily decided to establish press facilities for correspondents who need to report therefrom" and given that "[t]hese press facilities are perceived as being open to all bona fide Washington-based journalists," we held that "the protection afforded newsgathering under the first amendment . . . requires that this access not be denied arbitrarily or for less than compelling reasons."

---

This is from a 2020 case, Karem v. Trump, but is referencing its own ruling in Sherrill v. Knight from the 70's. The White House can't bar journalists from open forums that it creates based on the content of their reporting.

MidRatsAg said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

They have not been silenced, so there is no "violation of first amendment rights". To say so shows a very poor understanding of freedom of speech and press - as the FFs intended and as the people of the United States have intended and supported.

The comment about eroding trust in the executive is pure hooey. Seriously? No one can type that and think they are making an honest take.

Trump provides more public access and insight into his presidency, his entire administration, the White House, all of it. Yet somehow having Caitlin Collin's from CNN in the room ensures public trust in Trump?

Seriously?


Seriously?

---

I do think there's a question. The D.C. Circuit court has specifically held that once the White House establishes press facilities and access for journalists, the First Amendment protections apply and prohibit content-based exclusion.

Quote:

---

At the core of the Press Clause is the right to publish without requiring prior government approval. Although licensing systems were a common form of prior restraint when early conceptions of freedom of the press were debated in England, a modern equivalent is the use of government-imposed criteria to determine which media representatives may attend press conferences and briefings. When the government controls who has access to information, it effectively controls who is able to publish that information.

---

---

Yet, this is not about access to information. It's about access to the briefing room. They still have access to the video of the briefings and all the pertinent information that goes along with it.

What they do not have the right to is the ability to derail said press briefings with agenda-driven accusations and combative tone simply because they disagree with the administration. In other words, in reality they're not there to gather information. They're there to create a story and a narrative designed to get eyeballs on themselves.

They're free to report or print whatever garbage propaganda they want to. But this is about them trying to make themselves the story by being unnecessarily combative during briefings, and perpetuating imagined narratives designed to make POTUS look bad.

HTownAg98 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

MidRatsAg said:

---

Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

---

Denying office space in no way infringes upon their right to write, publish, or air their opinions.

---

But when the government creates a public forum or access program, excluding participants because of their viewpoints can raise a First Amendment question.

---

I think you're on a slippery slope with this argument, because you're limiting the definition of "excluding participants".

Why? The Biden administration allowed opposing media into the room, but only allowed questions from compliant media that had previously agreed to ask pre-approved questions in which answers, along with a picture of the reporter Biden was to call upon, were written on a piece of paper for Biden to read from.

I would argue that anyone not on that piece of paper was "excluded" under your definition.

Yet, there was zero outrage from the members of the media that were politically aligned with the administration.

I'm sick of the hypocrisy.

---

That's not a great argument, because everyone that covers The White House knows you aren't ever guaranteed to be called upon. Karine Jean-Pierre certainly had her favorites, and Karoline Leavitt did as well. Not being called upon is not a violation of the first amendment. Being excluded from the room because you say mean things about the administration is.

---

Bullcrap. You're splitting hairs and building a strawman here, and I'm not buying it. To suggest that Leavitt's favorites had any similarity to a pre-selected list of reporters with questions set in advance is an insult to rational thought.

At any rate, that's why I offered the compromise earlier in the thread. I have no issue with CNN and MSNOW being allowing in a briefing room. It just doesn't need to be THE briefing room. Problem solved.

I think the rulings in CNN v. Trump in 2018 and Karem v. Trump in 2020 established that physical presence in the briefing room to interact is protected under the First Amendment and that the White House must articulate behavioral standards in order to enforce them under the Fifth Amendment.

I'm not splitting hairs. Your distinction is just irrelevant.

B-1 83 said:

---

What's the status of TASS and PRAVDA for those briefings?

---

They were banned.

Trump just misspelled them as CNN and MSNow...

jrdaustin said:

---

MidRatsAg said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

They have not been silenced, so there is no "violation of first amendment rights". To say so shows a very poor understanding of freedom of speech and press - as the FFs intended and as the people of the United States have intended and supported.

The comment about eroding trust in the executive is pure hooey. Seriously? No one can type that and think they are making an honest take.

Trump provides more public access and insight into his presidency, his entire administration, the White House, all of it. Yet somehow having Caitlin Collin's from CNN in the room ensures public trust in Trump?

Seriously?


Seriously?

---

I do think there's a question. The D.C. Circuit court has specifically held that once the White House establishes press facilities and access for journalists, the First Amendment protections apply and prohibit content-based exclusion.

Quote:

---

At the core of the Press Clause is the right to publish without requiring prior government approval. Although licensing systems were a common form of prior restraint when early conceptions of freedom of the press were debated in England, a modern equivalent is the use of government-imposed criteria to determine which media representatives may attend press conferences and briefings. When the government controls who has access to information, it effectively controls who is able to publish that information.

---

---

Yet, this is not about access to information. It's about access to the briefing room. They still have access to the video of the briefings and all the pertinent information that goes along with it.

What they do not have the right to is the ability to derail said press briefings with agenda-driven accusations and combative tone simply because they disagree with the administration. In other words, in reality they're not there to gather information. They're there to create a story and a narrative designed to get eyeballs on themselves.

They're free to report or print whatever garbage propaganda they want to. But this is about them trying to make themselves the story by being unnecessarily combative during briefings, and perpetuating imagined narratives designed to make POTUS look bad.

---

People that cover briefings and press conferences already know there are certain rules on decorum that if you break them, you can be kicked out. And again, that's not their complaint.

It's a very simple analysis: does the restriction discriminate against someone because of viewpoint? If that answer is yes, then it almost certainly violates the First Amendment.

HTownAg98 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

MidRatsAg said:

---

Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

---

Denying office space in no way infringes upon their right to write, publish, or air their opinions.

---

But when the government creates a public forum or access program, excluding participants because of their viewpoints can raise a First Amendment question.

---

I think you're on a slippery slope with this argument, because you're limiting the definition of "excluding participants".

Why? The Biden administration allowed opposing media into the room, but only allowed questions from compliant media that had previously agreed to ask pre-approved questions in which answers, along with a picture of the reporter Biden was to call upon, were written on a piece of paper for Biden to read from.

I would argue that anyone not on that piece of paper was "excluded" under your definition.

Yet, there was zero outrage from the members of the media that were politically aligned with the administration.

I'm sick of the hypocrisy.

---

That's not a great argument, because everyone that covers The White House knows you aren't ever guaranteed to be called upon. Karine Jean-Pierre certainly had her favorites, and Karoline Leavitt did as well. Not being called upon is not a violation of the first amendment. Being excluded from the room because you say mean things about the administration is.

---

Being excluded is being excluded.

1) Being excluded from asking questions while in the room
2) Being excluded from asking questions while not in the room

The only difference is location.

That's not how the current case law sees it.

The First Amendment can protect your right to be present and listen. It does not protect your right to be heard.

HTownAg98 said:

---

That's not how the current case law sees it.

The First Amendment can protect your right to be present and listen. It does not protect your right to be heard.

---

They have access to the video feed, so they CAN listen.

So apparently, the only distinctions are their physical location and the press secretary's ability to see them.

What is the rationale for that?

HTownAg98 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

MidRatsAg said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

They have not been silenced, so there is no "violation of first amendment rights". To say so shows a very poor understanding of freedom of speech and press - as the FFs intended and as the people of the United States have intended and supported.

The comment about eroding trust in the executive is pure hooey. Seriously? No one can type that and think they are making an honest take.

Trump provides more public access and insight into his presidency, his entire administration, the White House, all of it. Yet somehow having Caitlin Collin's from CNN in the room ensures public trust in Trump?

Seriously?


Seriously?

---

I do think there's a question. The D.C. Circuit court has specifically held that once the White House establishes press facilities and access for journalists, the First Amendment protections apply and prohibit content-based exclusion.

Quote:

---

At the core of the Press Clause is the right to publish without requiring prior government approval. Although licensing systems were a common form of prior restraint when early conceptions of freedom of the press were debated in England, a modern equivalent is the use of government-imposed criteria to determine which media representatives may attend press conferences and briefings. When the government controls who has access to information, it effectively controls who is able to publish that information.

---

---

Yet, this is not about access to information. It's about access to the briefing room. They still have access to the video of the briefings and all the pertinent information that goes along with it.

What they do not have the right to is the ability to derail said press briefings with agenda-driven accusations and combative tone simply because they disagree with the administration. In other words, in reality they're not there to gather information. They're there to create a story and a narrative designed to get eyeballs on themselves.

They're free to report or print whatever garbage propaganda they want to. But this is about them trying to make themselves the story by being unnecessarily combative during briefings, and perpetuating imagined narratives designed to make POTUS look bad.

---

People that cover briefings and press conferences already know there are certain rules on decorum that if you break them, you can be kicked out. And again, that's not their complaint.

It's a very simple analysis: does the restriction discriminate against someone because of viewpoint? If that answer is yes, then it almost certainly violates the First Amendment.

---

It WAS their complaint when Trump attempted to bar Acosta due to his behavior during the first administration. If I look back through posting history, I suspect it was yours, too.

At any rate, Trump is likely to lose this on the legal merits, and he knows it. From BBC:

He also acknowledged that legal challenges may follow his announcement, saying "I think it's good to point it out, whether it survives or doesn't".

I can acknowledge that. What's tiring to me and others is the fact that when we saw actions similar to this by the BIden administration, going as far to outright censor opposing views, there was crickets from the left, because the actions were made by "their" team.

If you're as smart as you obviously think you are, you should recognize that that is an unsustainable path.

I guess you missed my post where I said that two wrongs don't make a right; it's still two wrongs.

HTownAg98 said:

---

I'm not splitting hairs. Your distinction is just irrelevant.

---

I could say the same thing to you, friend. Funny how that works, isn't it?

HTownAg98 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

MidRatsAg said:

---

Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

---

Denying office space in no way infringes upon their right to write, publish, or air their opinions.

---

But when the government creates a public forum or access program, excluding participants because of their viewpoints can raise a First Amendment question.

---

I think you're on a slippery slope with this argument, because you're limiting the definition of "excluding participants".

Why? The Biden administration allowed opposing media into the room, but only allowed questions from compliant media that had previously agreed to ask pre-approved questions in which answers, along with a picture of the reporter Biden was to call upon, were written on a piece of paper for Biden to read from.

I would argue that anyone not on that piece of paper was "excluded" under your definition.

Yet, there was zero outrage from the members of the media that were politically aligned with the administration.

I'm sick of the hypocrisy.

---

That's not a great argument, because everyone that covers The White House knows you aren't ever guaranteed to be called upon. Karine Jean-Pierre certainly had her favorites, and Karoline Leavitt did as well. Not being called upon is not a violation of the first amendment. Being excluded from the room because you say mean things about the administration is.

---

Nonsense. There is no right to attend press conferences or briefings. They can continue to write all they want, and their writings are not being banned in any way.

Ag with kids said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

MidRatsAg said:

---

Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

---

Denying office space in no way infringes upon their right to write, publish, or air their opinions.

---

But when the government creates a public forum or access program, excluding participants because of their viewpoints can raise a First Amendment question.

---

I think you're on a slippery slope with this argument, because you're limiting the definition of "excluding participants".

Why? The Biden administration allowed opposing media into the room, but only allowed questions from compliant media that had previously agreed to ask pre-approved questions in which answers, along with a picture of the reporter Biden was to call upon, were written on a piece of paper for Biden to read from.

I would argue that anyone not on that piece of paper was "excluded" under your definition.

Yet, there was zero outrage from the members of the media that were politically aligned with the administration.

I'm sick of the hypocrisy.

---

That's not a great argument, because everyone that covers The White House knows you aren't ever guaranteed to be called upon. Karine Jean-Pierre certainly had her favorites, and Karoline Leavitt did as well. Not being called upon is not a violation of the first amendment. Being excluded from the room because you say mean things about the administration is.

---

Being excluded is being excluded.

1) Being excluded from asking questions while in the room
2) Being excluded from asking questions while not in the room

The only difference is location.

---

Very well said. This, Htown, was the splitting of hairs that I spoke of, and it IS quite relevant.

HTownAg98 said:

---

That's not how the current case law sees it.

The First Amendment can protect your right to be present and listen. It does not protect your right to be heard.

---

There are 49 permanent seats in the briefing room. Under what universe is CNN or MSNOW given a constitutional right to two of those seats?

jrdaustin said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

MidRatsAg said:

---

Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

---

Denying office space in no way infringes upon their right to write, publish, or air their opinions.

---

But when the government creates a public forum or access program, excluding participants because of their viewpoints can raise a First Amendment question.

---

I think you're on a slippery slope with this argument, because you're limiting the definition of "excluding participants".

Why? The Biden administration allowed opposing media into the room, but only allowed questions from compliant media that had previously agreed to ask pre-approved questions in which answers, along with a picture of the reporter Biden was to call upon, were written on a piece of paper for Biden to read from.

I would argue that anyone not on that piece of paper was "excluded" under your definition.

Yet, there was zero outrage from the members of the media that were politically aligned with the administration.

I'm sick of the hypocrisy.

---

That's not a great argument, because everyone that covers The White House knows you aren't ever guaranteed to be called upon. Karine Jean-Pierre certainly had her favorites, and Karoline Leavitt did as well. Not being called upon is not a violation of the first amendment. Being excluded from the room because you say mean things about the administration is.

---

Being excluded is being excluded.

1) Being excluded from asking questions while in the room
2) Being excluded from asking questions while not in the room

The only difference is location.

---

Very well said. This, Htown, was the splitting of hairs that I spoke of....

---

Good, then you can both be wrong. As I said earlier, the First Amendment can protect your right to be present in the room and listen. It rarely protects your right to be heard.

jrdaustin said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

That's not how the current case law sees it.

The First Amendment can protect your right to be present and listen. It does not protect your right to be heard.

---

There are 49 permanent seats in the briefing room. Under what universe is CNN or MSNOW given a constitutional right to two of those seats?

---

Good grief. They aren't arguing that. You seem to have a knack for bringing up scenarios that they aren't even complaining about.

Space is limited. Everyone knows that. As long as the decision is made who can attend that isn't based on the viewpoint of the attendees, there's nothing wrong with that.

HTownAg98 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

MidRatsAg said:

---

Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

---

Denying office space in no way infringes upon their right to write, publish, or air their opinions.

---

But when the government creates a public forum or access program, excluding participants because of their viewpoints can raise a First Amendment question.

---

I think you're on a slippery slope with this argument, because you're limiting the definition of "excluding participants".

Why? The Biden administration allowed opposing media into the room, but only allowed questions from compliant media that had previously agreed to ask pre-approved questions in which answers, along with a picture of the reporter Biden was to call upon, were written on a piece of paper for Biden to read from.

I would argue that anyone not on that piece of paper was "excluded" under your definition.

Yet, there was zero outrage from the members of the media that were politically aligned with the administration.

I'm sick of the hypocrisy.

---

That's not a great argument, because everyone that covers The White House knows you aren't ever guaranteed to be called upon. Karine Jean-Pierre certainly had her favorites, and Karoline Leavitt did as well. Not being called upon is not a violation of the first amendment. Being excluded from the room because you say mean things about the administration is.

---

Explain why there is a right to be in the room but not a right to ask questions.

It takes a particular level of pretending to act like KJP was just picking favorites. But that is not what the bigger issue is.

Biden had preselected people, never including "hostile" or critical reporters in those selections, and prescreening topics and in many cases the questions themselves.

BTW - Let me short circuit how this ends. If a court says CNN has to be in the room, then the easy answer is no more press access to POTUS. Call a lit at 9am everyday like Biden did. There most certainly is no law requiring POTUS to give press access to ask him or the press secretary.

He is then free to just have selected one on one interviews with friendly press. I mean its perfectly legal because that is what Biden did.

jrdaustin said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

That's not how the current case law sees it.

The First Amendment can protect your right to be present and listen. It does not protect your right to be heard.

---

There are 49 permanent seats in the briefing room. Under what universe is CNN or MSNOW given a constitutional right to two of those seats?

---

CNN and MSNOW are not legitimate journalism organizations. They are nothing more than propaganda arms of the DNC. Give those seats to legitimate journalist that are willing to hold the administration accountable with actual important questions. Not the stupid gotchas designed only to advance the dishonest left wing narratives you get with DNC propagandist.

jrdaustin said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

That's not how the current case law sees it.

The First Amendment can protect your right to be present and listen. It does not protect your right to be heard.

---

There are 49 permanent seats in the briefing room. Under what universe is CNN or MSNOW given a constitutional right to two of those seats?

---

It's under the legal theory of "Orange Man is a Big Bad Meanie Pants" and this is supported by a corrupt judiciary who enjoys cocktail parties with CNN anchors.

Not sure which law school its taught at but given my experience with lawyers in the real world and in particularly here on f16, they don't teach much about law, constitution and certainly not common sense in law schools.

BTW - Our entire legal system is based on common sense, rationale behavior between parties. It's been *******ized by theories and piss poor interpretations by "legal experts". Like infectious disease scientists and economists, these experts are mostly wrong and mildly ******ed at best.

flown-the-coop said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

MidRatsAg said:

---

Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

---

Denying office space in no way infringes upon their right to write, publish, or air their opinions.

---

But when the government creates a public forum or access program, excluding participants because of their viewpoints can raise a First Amendment question.

---

I think you're on a slippery slope with this argument, because you're limiting the definition of "excluding participants".

Why? The Biden administration allowed opposing media into the room, but only allowed questions from compliant media that had previously agreed to ask pre-approved questions in which answers, along with a picture of the reporter Biden was to call upon, were written on a piece of paper for Biden to read from.

I would argue that anyone not on that piece of paper was "excluded" under your definition.

Yet, there was zero outrage from the members of the media that were politically aligned with the administration.

I'm sick of the hypocrisy.

---

That's not a great argument, because everyone that covers The White House knows you aren't ever guaranteed to be called upon. Karine Jean-Pierre certainly had her favorites, and Karoline Leavitt did as well. Not being called upon is not a violation of the first amendment. Being excluded from the room because you say mean things about the administration is.

---

Explain why there is a right to be in the room but not a right to ask questions.

It takes a particular level of pretending to act like KJP was just picking favorites. But that is not what the bigger issue is.

Biden had preselected people, never including "hostile" or critical reporters in those selections, and prescreening topics and in many cases the questions themselves.

BTW - Let me short circuit how this ends. If a court says CNN has to be in the room, then the easy answer is no more press access to POTUS. Call a lit at 9am everyday like Biden did. There most certainly is no law requiring POTUS to give press access to ask him or the press secretary.

He is then free to just have selected one on one interviews with friendly press. I mean its perfectly legal because that is what Biden did.

---

As has been explained several times on this thread, but you continue to ignore, when the government opens a space to the press as a public forum, they cannot discriminate on who in the press can attend because of viewpoint. But, there is no right for anyone to be called on. Hell, they don't have to call on anyone AT ALL.
Your last point is mostly irrelevant, because that is not what CNN will be asking for. The only thing they will ask for is to be treated like everyone else. And Trump can do everything in your last two paragraphs that Biden did. Nothing wrong with that.

What law or document gives the executive branch authority to determine which organizations are or are not fake or legitimate news organizations, or propaganda arms?

HTownAg98 said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

MidRatsAg said:

---

Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

---

Denying office space in no way infringes upon their right to write, publish, or air their opinions.

---

But when the government creates a public forum or access program, excluding participants because of their viewpoints can raise a First Amendment question.

---

I think you're on a slippery slope with this argument, because you're limiting the definition of "excluding participants".

Why? The Biden administration allowed opposing media into the room, but only allowed questions from compliant media that had previously agreed to ask pre-approved questions in which answers, along with a picture of the reporter Biden was to call upon, were written on a piece of paper for Biden to read from.

I would argue that anyone not on that piece of paper was "excluded" under your definition.

Yet, there was zero outrage from the members of the media that were politically aligned with the administration.

I'm sick of the hypocrisy.

---

That's not a great argument, because everyone that covers The White House knows you aren't ever guaranteed to be called upon. Karine Jean-Pierre certainly had her favorites, and Karoline Leavitt did as well. Not being called upon is not a violation of the first amendment. Being excluded from the room because you say mean things about the administration is.

---

Explain why there is a right to be in the room but not a right to ask questions.

It takes a particular level of pretending to act like KJP was just picking favorites. But that is not what the bigger issue is.

Biden had preselected people, never including "hostile" or critical reporters in those selections, and prescreening topics and in many cases the questions themselves.

BTW - Let me short circuit how this ends. If a court says CNN has to be in the room, then the easy answer is no more press access to POTUS. Call a lit at 9am everyday like Biden did. There most certainly is no law requiring POTUS to give press access to ask him or the press secretary.

He is then free to just have selected one on one interviews with friendly press. I mean its perfectly legal because that is what Biden did.

---

As has been explained several times on this thread, but you continue to ignore, when the government opens a space to the press as a public forum, they cannot discriminate on who in the press can attend because of viewpoint. But, there is no right for anyone to be called on. Hell, they don't have to call on anyone AT ALL.
Your last point is mostly irrelevant, because that is not what CNN will be asking for. The only thing they will ask for is to be treated like everyone else. And Trump can do everything in your last two paragraphs that Biden did. Nothing wrong with that.

---

Just because you repeat a terrible take on the US Constitution doesn't make it any more correct, but you continue to ignore that reality.

Yes, I clearly understand Trump can do what I said, that is why I said it. He can also exclude CNN under the very simply principle as there are only so many seats. And CNN has violated policy on decorum and is being removed. Sorry that hurts your feelz.

MidRatsAg said:

---

What law or document gives the executive branch authority to determine which organizations are or are not fake or legitimate news organizations, or propaganda arms?

---

POTUS can prioritize which news organizations are given access to the WH grounds and other places where POTUS is.

Many of the terrible takes on what the WH press corps "rights" are rely on the WH press associations internal rule book, which is not law, not part of the constitution, and there is no obligation for POTUS or the WH to abide by those rules.

A couple of court decisions based on different sets of facts does not change the fact that POTUS gets to pick and choose who he talks to.

What you and others are advocating for is to allow for anti-American propagandist to be given unfettered access to POTUS and a stage to proselytize from to spread their lies and misinformation; There is no requirement in the Constitution that they have a right to such. They have a right to print what they want, a right to protest, a right to petition the government.

They have am equal right to information published by POTUS. I don't see where Trump is attempting to limit any of those things. Just a removal of privileges. Privileges are not rights.

flown-the-coop said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

MidRatsAg said:

---

Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

---

Denying office space in no way infringes upon their right to write, publish, or air their opinions.

---

But when the government creates a public forum or access program, excluding participants because of their viewpoints can raise a First Amendment question.

---

I think you're on a slippery slope with this argument, because you're limiting the definition of "excluding participants".

Why? The Biden administration allowed opposing media into the room, but only allowed questions from compliant media that had previously agreed to ask pre-approved questions in which answers, along with a picture of the reporter Biden was to call upon, were written on a piece of paper for Biden to read from.

I would argue that anyone not on that piece of paper was "excluded" under your definition.

Yet, there was zero outrage from the members of the media that were politically aligned with the administration.

I'm sick of the hypocrisy.

---

That's not a great argument, because everyone that covers The White House knows you aren't ever guaranteed to be called upon. Karine Jean-Pierre certainly had her favorites, and Karoline Leavitt did as well. Not being called upon is not a violation of the first amendment. Being excluded from the room because you say mean things about the administration is.

---

Explain why there is a right to be in the room but not a right to ask questions.

It takes a particular level of pretending to act like KJP was just picking favorites. But that is not what the bigger issue is.

Biden had preselected people, never including "hostile" or critical reporters in those selections, and prescreening topics and in many cases the questions themselves.

BTW - Let me short circuit how this ends. If a court says CNN has to be in the room, then the easy answer is no more press access to POTUS. Call a lit at 9am everyday like Biden did. There most certainly is no law requiring POTUS to give press access to ask him or the press secretary.

He is then free to just have selected one on one interviews with friendly press. I mean its perfectly legal because that is what Biden did.

---

As has been explained several times on this thread, but you continue to ignore, when the government opens a space to the press as a public forum, they cannot discriminate on who in the press can attend because of viewpoint. But, there is no right for anyone to be called on. Hell, they don't have to call on anyone AT ALL.
Your last point is mostly irrelevant, because that is not what CNN will be asking for. The only thing they will ask for is to be treated like everyone else. And Trump can do everything in your last two paragraphs that Biden did. Nothing wrong with that.

---

Just because you repeat a terrible take on the US Constitution doesn't make it any more correct, but you continue to ignore that reality.

Yes, I clearly understand Trump can do what I said, that is why I said it. He can also exclude CNN under the very simply principle as there are only so many seats. And CNN has violated policy on decorum and is being removed. Sorry that hurts your feelz.

---

You are an unserious person who clearly does not understand what the case law says.

HTownAg98 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

MidRatsAg said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

They have not been silenced, so there is no "violation of first amendment rights". To say so shows a very poor understanding of freedom of speech and press - as the FFs intended and as the people of the United States have intended and supported.

The comment about eroding trust in the executive is pure hooey. Seriously? No one can type that and think they are making an honest take.

Trump provides more public access and insight into his presidency, his entire administration, the White House, all of it. Yet somehow having Caitlin Collin's from CNN in the room ensures public trust in Trump?

Seriously?


Seriously?

---

I do think there's a question. The D.C. Circuit court has specifically held that once the White House establishes press facilities and access for journalists, the First Amendment protections apply and prohibit content-based exclusion.

Quote:

---

At the core of the Press Clause is the right to publish without requiring prior government approval. Although licensing systems were a common form of prior restraint when early conceptions of freedom of the press were debated in England, a modern equivalent is the use of government-imposed criteria to determine which media representatives may attend press conferences and briefings. When the government controls who has access to information, it effectively controls who is able to publish that information.

---

---

Yet, this is not about access to information. It's about access to the briefing room. They still have access to the video of the briefings and all the pertinent information that goes along with it.

What they do not have the right to is the ability to derail said press briefings with agenda-driven accusations and combative tone simply because they disagree with the administration. In other words, in reality they're not there to gather information. They're there to create a story and a narrative designed to get eyeballs on themselves.

They're free to report or print whatever garbage propaganda they want to. But this is about them trying to make themselves the story by being unnecessarily combative during briefings, and perpetuating imagined narratives designed to make POTUS look bad.

---

People that cover briefings and press conferences already know there are certain rules on decorum that if you break them, you can be kicked out. And again, that's not their complaint.

It's a very simple analysis: does the restriction discriminate against someone because of viewpoint? If that answer is yes, then it almost certainly violates the First Amendment.

---

Hmmm...Jim Acosta broke those rules on decorum MULTIPLE times, but when he was kicked out, he sued and had to be let back in.

So, apparently those rules don't apply to Democrats.

flown-the-coop said:

---

MidRatsAg said:

---

What law or document gives the executive branch authority to determine which organizations are or are not fake or legitimate news organizations, or propaganda arms?

---

POTUS can prioritize which news organizations are given access to the WH grounds and other places where POTUS is.

Quote:

---

Depends. If POTUS wants to grant an exclusive interview to a particular person or news group, no problem. If it's an open forum, like a bill signing or a press conference where the media is invited at large, and he wants to ban CNN because they say mean things about him, then there's a problem. {/quote]

Quote:

---

Many of the terrible takes on what the WH press corps "rights" are rely on the WH press associations internal rule book, which is not law, not part of the constitution, and there is no obligation for POTUS or the WH to abide by those rules.

---

No, they rely on existing case law.

Quote:

---

A couple of court decisions based on different sets of facts does not change the fact that POTUS gets to pick and choose who he talks to.

---

No, see above, and Sherril v. Knight 569 F.2d 124 (1977)

Quote:

---

What you and others are advocating for is to allow for anti-American propagandist to be given unfettered access to POTUS and a stage to proselytize from to spread their lies and misinformation; There is no requirement in the Constitution that they have a right to such. They have a right to print what they want, a right to protest, a right to petition the government.

---

Not true at all, and that's something you made up to fit your argument.

Quote:

---

They have am equal right to information published by POTUS. I don't see where Trump is attempting to limit any of those things. Just a removal of privileges. Privileges are not rights.

---

A word salad with raisins. That's not what this is about.

---

---