HTownAg98 said:

---

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.

---

WTF does being "present in the room" have to do with the First Amendment?

Can you point that out in the Constitution regarding freedom of the press?

flown-the-coop said:

---

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.

---

BTW...just remember that HTownAg98 is NOT a lawyer...so...

Ag with kids said:

---

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.

---

Because the White House didn't follow their own procedures in revoking his hard pass. That created a due process claim. And the White House eventually relented.

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.

---

If they ask to be treated like everyone else, but are NEVER called on to ask a question, it seems like they're NOT being treated like everyone else...so, CNN lawsuit on Aisle 3...

Ag with kids said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

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.

---

WTF does being "present in the room" have to do with the First Amendment?

Can you point that out in the Constitution regarding freedom of the press?

---

For ****'s sake. IF A GOVERNMENT ENTITY CREATES A PUBLIC FORUM, THEY CANNOT DISCRIMINATE WHO CAN BE IN THE ROOM BASED ON VIEWPOINT. I don't know how to make this simpler for you. And no, it's not explicitly laid out in the Constitution, but it is in the BINDING CASE LAW. And that's what we have to go by until SCOTUS or Congress says otherwise.

HTownAg98 said:

---

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.

---

Case law… funny.

Ag with kids 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.

---

If they ask to be treated like everyone else, but are NEVER called on to ask a question, it seems like they're NOT being treated like everyone else...so, CNN lawsuit on Aisle 3...

---

Yes they are. For the third time already, THE FIRST AMENDMENT DOES NOT GUARANTEE A RIGHT TO BE HEARD.

HTownAg98 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

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.

---

WTF does being "present in the room" have to do with the First Amendment?

Can you point that out in the Constitution regarding freedom of the press?

---

For ****'s sake. IF A GOVERNMENT ENTITY CREATES A PUBLIC FORUM, THEY CANNOT DISCRIMINATE WHO CAN BE IN THE ROOM BASED ON VIEWPOINT. I don't know how to make this simpler for you. And no, it's not explicitly laid out in the Constitution, but it is in the BINDING CASE LAW. And that's what we have to go by until SCOTUS or Congress says otherwise.

---

So if IRGC… I mean The Hormuz Letter, wants a permanent seat in the WH briefing room, they have a constitutional right to do so according to HTownAg98 School of Law and Other Bad Takes.

As soon as you understand their is discretion based simply on things like space, credibility, security, etc then you will understand POTUS can do what he is doing.

Sorry, but that's actually the law not some liberal DSA Jate America interpretation of it.

HTownAg98 said:

---

Ag with kids 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.

---

If they ask to be treated like everyone else, but are NEVER called on to ask a question, it seems like they're NOT being treated like everyone else...so, CNN lawsuit on Aisle 3...

---

Yes they are. For the third time already, THE FIRST AMENDMENT DOES NOT GUARANTEE A RIGHT TO BE HEARD.

---

First Amendment is a right to be present in a room of reporters. Got it. Makes totes sense.

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.

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.

---

Trump should just declare that ALL media is FAKE NEWS. They ALL LIE. (Oh WAIT...he's done that).

Then exclude CNN and MSNow because they don't have enough seats for them.

He's not excluding them for viewpoints. He thinks EVERY ONE of the people in the press briefings are liars. So...everyone is being treated equally.

Ah, the memories… https://t.co/UE3OolLZOG

— Joe Concha (@JoeConchaTV) September 20, 2026

This dude was so laughably wrong the first time around n this, was wrong on Trump and documents case, wrong on the Georgia election case.

TDS runs very strong in some.

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.

---

Federal courts have upheld several times that the White House cannot open doors to some journalists and then shut those doors to other journalists based on their viewpoints. It is a First Amendment issue.

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.

---

Can you list some examples of takes on what the White House press Corps' "rights" are? I'm not familiar with which takes you're referring to.

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.

---

Of course not. However, those court decisions do prohibit the exclusion of reporters from open press forums because of their viewpoints.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Once the government has opened up a medium for the press to interact with officials from the government, the First Amendment protects against the exclusion of press members due to their viewpoints. That is what the courts have ruled is the interpretation of the First Amendment in these cases; therefore, that is the rule of law.

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.

---

They are rights, per the First Amendment. If access privileges are extended to some members of the press, others cannot be excluded on the basis of the Executive's preference for some viewpoints over others.

flown-the-coop said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

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.

---

Case law… funny.

---

I've got news for you. There are at least seven, and possibly eight justices on the Supreme Court that would rule against you and your opinion on this.

flown-the-coop said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

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.

---

WTF does being "present in the room" have to do with the First Amendment?

Can you point that out in the Constitution regarding freedom of the press?

---

For ****'s sake. IF A GOVERNMENT ENTITY CREATES A PUBLIC FORUM, THEY CANNOT DISCRIMINATE WHO CAN BE IN THE ROOM BASED ON VIEWPOINT. I don't know how to make this simpler for you. And no, it's not explicitly laid out in the Constitution, but it is in the BINDING CASE LAW. And that's what we have to go by until SCOTUS or Congress says otherwise.

---

So if IRGC… I mean The Hormuz Letter, wants a permanent seat in the WH briefing room, they have a constitutional right to do so according to HTownAg98 School of Law and Other Bad Takes.

As soon as you understand their is discretion based simply on things like space, credibility, security, etc then you will understand POTUS can do what he is doing.

Sorry, but that's actually the law not some liberal DSA Jate America interpretation of it.

---

You're logic is dumber than a bag of rocks. That's not what I said, and go jump in a lake for twisting my words. And you're also just making **** up. No one is asking for a permanent seat. All they are asking for is to be treated equally. You can twist this with all the non-sequiters and ad homs you want, but your take is ridiculous, because that is in no way shape or form what CNN is asking for.

flown-the-coop said:

---

This dude was so laughably wrong the first time around n this, was wrong on Trump and documents case, wrong on the Georgia election case.

TDS runs very strong in some.

---

Show me where I was involved in the Georgia election case. I may have been, but I don't remember it. Unless you're just trolling and throwing **** against the wall to see if anything sticks.

flown-the-coop said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

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.

---

WTF does being "present in the room" have to do with the First Amendment?

Can you point that out in the Constitution regarding freedom of the press?

---

For ****'s sake. IF A GOVERNMENT ENTITY CREATES A PUBLIC FORUM, THEY CANNOT DISCRIMINATE WHO CAN BE IN THE ROOM BASED ON VIEWPOINT. I don't know how to make this simpler for you. And no, it's not explicitly laid out in the Constitution, but it is in the BINDING CASE LAW. And that's what we have to go by until SCOTUS or Congress says otherwise.

---

So if IRGC… I mean The Hormuz Letter, wants a permanent seat in the WH briefing room, they have a constitutional right to do so according to HTownAg98 School of Law and Other Bad Takes.

As soon as you understand their is discretion based simply on things like space, credibility, security, etc then you will understand POTUS can do what he is doing.

---

We have court rulings that establish that the press cannot be excluded based on their views, which is what is being considered. Can you reference court case where your opinions are established?

Maybe it's your pleasant repartee...

flown-the-coop said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Ag with kids 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.

---

If they ask to be treated like everyone else, but are NEVER called on to ask a question, it seems like they're NOT being treated like everyone else...so, CNN lawsuit on Aisle 3...

---

Yes they are. For the third time already, THE FIRST AMENDMENT DOES NOT GUARANTEE A RIGHT TO BE HEARD.

---

First Amendment is a right to be present in a room of reporters. Got it. Makes totes sense.

---

If other reporters are in the room, it guarantees press members the right to not be excluded from the room based on their viewpoints.

Ag with kids said:

---

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.

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.

---

Trump should just declare that ALL media is FAKE NEWS. They ALL LIE. (Oh WAIT...he's done that).

Then exclude CNN and MSNow because they don't have enough seats for them.

He's not excluding them for viewpoints. He thinks EVERY ONE of the people in the press briefings are liars. So...everyone is being treated equally.

---

Unfortunately, I think they'd run into the issue that those are organizations that already have seats. Revoking their existing access is the problem here.

They are being treated equally, equally to everyone else not allowed in the room.

You are making this way too complicated cause Trump makes you mad.

Limited access means not everyone gets a seat.

Who gets a seat is up to Trump. Not a court and not the White House Press Association. Just… Trump.

Hope that helps.

MidRatsAg said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Ag with kids 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.

---

If they ask to be treated like everyone else, but are NEVER called on to ask a question, it seems like they're NOT being treated like everyone else...so, CNN lawsuit on Aisle 3...

---

Yes they are. For the third time already, THE FIRST AMENDMENT DOES NOT GUARANTEE A RIGHT TO BE HEARD.

---

First Amendment is a right to be present in a room of reporters. Got it. Makes totes sense.

---

If other reporters are in the room, it guarantees press members the right to not be excluded from the room based on their viewpoints.

---

They are being excluded because they report things inaccurately to serve their political beliefs.

It's their own doing. They need to be able to show they are reporting the facts clearly and objectively. They have not been so they will be excluded.

MidRatsAg said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

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.

---

WTF does being "present in the room" have to do with the First Amendment?

Can you point that out in the Constitution regarding freedom of the press?

---

For ****'s sake. IF A GOVERNMENT ENTITY CREATES A PUBLIC FORUM, THEY CANNOT DISCRIMINATE WHO CAN BE IN THE ROOM BASED ON VIEWPOINT. I don't know how to make this simpler for you. And no, it's not explicitly laid out in the Constitution, but it is in the BINDING CASE LAW. And that's what we have to go by until SCOTUS or Congress says otherwise.

---

So if IRGC… I mean The Hormuz Letter, wants a permanent seat in the WH briefing room, they have a constitutional right to do so according to HTownAg98 School of Law and Other Bad Takes.

As soon as you understand their is discretion based simply on things like space, credibility, security, etc then you will understand POTUS can do what he is doing.

---

We have court rulings that establish that the press cannot be excluded based on their views, which is what is being considered. Can you reference court case where your opinions are established?

---

It's the US Constitution.

Maybe not on that one. But thanks for confirming I was correct in my memory of the other terrible takes.

I did no such thing.

flown-the-coop said:

---

They are being treated equally, equally to everyone else not allowed in the room.

You are making this way too complicated cause Trump makes you mad.

Limited access means not everyone gets a seat.

Who gets a seat is up to Trump. Not a court and not the White House Press Association. Just… Trump.

Hope that helps.

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

MidRatsAg said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Ag with kids 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.

---

If they ask to be treated like everyone else, but are NEVER called on to ask a question, it seems like they're NOT being treated like everyone else...so, CNN lawsuit on Aisle 3...

---

Yes they are. For the third time already, THE FIRST AMENDMENT DOES NOT GUARANTEE A RIGHT TO BE HEARD.

---

First Amendment is a right to be present in a room of reporters. Got it. Makes totes sense.

---

If other reporters are in the room, it guarantees press members the right to not be excluded from the room based on their viewpoints.

---

They are being excluded because they report things inaccurately to serve their political beliefs.

It's their own doing. They need to be able to show they are reporting the facts clearly and objectively. They have not been so they will be excluded.

---

The Executive Branch does not have the authority to determine what is or is not true. Also, United States v. Alvarez established that speech does not have to be true to be protected by the First Amendment.

Enjoy yourself. We can revisit down the road.

flown-the-coop said:

---

MidRatsAg said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

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.

---

WTF does being "present in the room" have to do with the First Amendment?

Can you point that out in the Constitution regarding freedom of the press?

---

For ****'s sake. IF A GOVERNMENT ENTITY CREATES A PUBLIC FORUM, THEY CANNOT DISCRIMINATE WHO CAN BE IN THE ROOM BASED ON VIEWPOINT. I don't know how to make this simpler for you. And no, it's not explicitly laid out in the Constitution, but it is in the BINDING CASE LAW. And that's what we have to go by until SCOTUS or Congress says otherwise.

---

So if IRGC… I mean The Hormuz Letter, wants a permanent seat in the WH briefing room, they have a constitutional right to do so according to HTownAg98 School of Law and Other Bad Takes.

As soon as you understand their is discretion based simply on things like space, credibility, security, etc then you will understand POTUS can do what he is doing.

---

We have court rulings that establish that the press cannot be excluded based on their views, which is what is being considered. Can you reference court case where your opinions are established?

---

It's the US Constitution.

---

Yes, the court cases I've referenced are the interpretations of the judicial system of the Constitution on similar matters to the one we're discussing.

Can you reference a court case where your opinions are established?

MidRatsAg said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

MidRatsAg said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Ag with kids 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.

---

If they ask to be treated like everyone else, but are NEVER called on to ask a question, it seems like they're NOT being treated like everyone else...so, CNN lawsuit on Aisle 3...

---

Yes they are. For the third time already, THE FIRST AMENDMENT DOES NOT GUARANTEE A RIGHT TO BE HEARD.

---

First Amendment is a right to be present in a room of reporters. Got it. Makes totes sense.

---

If other reporters are in the room, it guarantees press members the right to not be excluded from the room based on their viewpoints.

---

They are being excluded because they report things inaccurately to serve their political beliefs.

It's their own doing. They need to be able to show they are reporting the facts clearly and objectively. They have not been so they will be excluded.

---

The Executive Branch does not have the authority to determine what is or is not true. Also, United States v. Alvarez established that speech does not have to be true to be protected by the First Amendment.

---

You seem to have a hard time with the point.

CNN can continue to say whatever the hell they want. They just are not going to be invited into the White House afternoon tea session where Trump takes questions from respected members of the journalism community. A tea session CNN is no longer invited to.

Quit conflating what someone can write or say with whether someone has access to POTUS.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Enjoy yourself. We can revisit down the road.

---

I'll be happy to. Enjoy your evening.

I have been clear in telling you that the previous cases are not only irrelevant but almost certainly wrongly decided.

flown-the-coop said:

---

I have been clear in telling you that the previous cases are not only irrelevant but almost certainly wrongly decided.

---

In AP v Budovich, two Trump appointed judges who also served in the Trump White Hoise said he almost certainly cannot ban the press based on viewpoints from at least parts of the White House. That will be as relevant and applicable to CNN and others as it was the AP.

We'll see. His lawyers probably want him to shut up about this, though. He's not helping himself by blathering about it on Truth Social.

flown-the-coop said:

---

MidRatsAg said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

MidRatsAg said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Ag with kids 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.

---

If they ask to be treated like everyone else, but are NEVER called on to ask a question, it seems like they're NOT being treated like everyone else...so, CNN lawsuit on Aisle 3...

---

Yes they are. For the third time already, THE FIRST AMENDMENT DOES NOT GUARANTEE A RIGHT TO BE HEARD.

---

First Amendment is a right to be present in a room of reporters. Got it. Makes totes sense.

---

If other reporters are in the room, it guarantees press members the right to not be excluded from the room based on their viewpoints.

---

They are being excluded because they report things inaccurately to serve their political beliefs.

It's their own doing. They need to be able to show they are reporting the facts clearly and objectively. They have not been so they will be excluded.

---

The Executive Branch does not have the authority to determine what is or is not true. Also, United States v. Alvarez established that speech does not have to be true to be protected by the First Amendment.

---

You seem to have a hard time with the point.

CNN can continue to say whatever the hell they want. They just are not going to be invited into the White House afternoon tea session where Trump takes questions from respected members of the journalism community. A tea session CNN is no longer invited to.

Quit conflating what someone can write or say with whether someone has access to POTUS.

---

The White House must provide due process to revoke press access. It's established in the court cases referenced elsewhere in this thread. That's the law.

flown-the-coop said:

---

I have been clear in telling you that the previous cases are not only irrelevant but almost certainly wrongly decided.

---

This has been a long thread with a lot of back and forth, but I just don't remember you making either of those points yet. Can you explain why and provide some sources or evidence?