SA68AG said:

---

Trump needs to simply state there will be no more press conferences unless the AP drops its lawsuit.

Then he can have one-on-one interviews with Hannity and Rogan and other selected media figures which have a broad reach.

---

I'm sure the lawyers and pseudo lawyers on here would argue that Trump not having pressers is somehow a violation of the free speech of the press.

annie88 said:

---

They can report on anything they want to just because they're not gonna be "in The Room Where It Happens" tough *****

The White House gets to do what they want. Just like they always do. That last idiot press chick wouldn't call on many people most of the time.

---

Exactly.

Like it or not, it's the president's prerogative, period, end of conversation.

Logos Stick said:

---

Pundit

---

Gateway Pundit got a favorable ruling on the preliminary injunction (which is what they asked for) on appeal, and then Maricopa County relented and gave them a pass. That sounds like a decision to me.

Logos Stick said:

---

SA68AG said:

---

Trump needs to simply state there will be no more press conferences unless the AP drops its lawsuit.

Then he can have one-on-one interviews with Hannity and Rogan and other selected media figures which have a broad reach.

---

I'm sure the lawyers and pseudo lawyers on here would argue that Trump not having pressers is somehow a violation of the free speech of the press.

---

It's definitely not. No one would argue that.

Logos Stick said:

---

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

---

Well, he's shilling for the Dems, so what did you expect?

Hey Htown: where in here does it say the president is obligated to give a cabal of companies specific access to him?

Quote:

---

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

---

"The press" isn't a magical club who gets a tier of rights above commoners: it's merely a description of entities that publish for public consumption. From a constitutional perspective the AP as an organization doesn't rates special access anymore than any other publisher. Every other case that may imply they rate something is grounded on precedent and extrapolation and NOT a plain reading of the constitution.

It's not about giving specific access. It's about revoking access because someone says mean things about the government. That's viewpoint discrimination, and it's not permitted under our constitution.

The government doesn't get to decide what the truth is; that's for the marketplace of ideas to decide. What you're suggesting is that the government can decide who gets to cover them based on how they report the news concerning the White House. That's not how it works.

That's just reframing of something that still isn't 1st amendment enshrined. What you would claim is "revoking access" betrays an entitlement perspective where the AP DESERVES something few others get. Special access should instead be considered as invitations where the admin often - but not always - chooses to re-invite members of the press into a place they have no unique right to.

When a girlfriend gets invited to family thanksgivings for years on end, and then she cheats on the boy and they break up - it should be little surprise she no longer receives invitations.

HTownAg98 said:

---

It's not about giving specific access. It's about revoking access because someone says mean things about the government. That's viewpoint discrimination, and it's not permitted under our constitution.

The government doesn't get to decide what the truth is; that's for the marketplace of ideas to decide. What you're suggesting is that the government can decide who gets to cover them based on how they report the news concerning the White House. That's not how it works.

---

Again, how was it not "discrimination" for Biden to only allow friendly questions, prescribed questions, to a select chosen people at a PRESS CONFERENCE?

Yet Trump takes away privileged access to the Ival and AF1, places he has ZERO obligation to provide them access to?

Don't you see the problem? Not familiar with the Maricopa case but if that was a public meeting or hearing again that is a completely different fact sets. AF1 and the Oval are privileges that can be revoked.

Period.

HTownAg98 said:

---

It's not about giving specific access. It's about revoking access because someone says mean things about the government. That's viewpoint discrimination, and it's not permitted under our constitution.

The government doesn't get to decide what the truth is; that's for the marketplace of ideas to decide. What you're suggesting is that the government can decide who gets to cover them based on how they report the news concerning the White House. That's not how it works.

---

They can cover them from the parking lot.

flown-the-coop said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

It's not about giving specific access. It's about revoking access because someone says mean things about the government. That's viewpoint discrimination, and it's not permitted under our constitution.

The government doesn't get to decide what the truth is; that's for the marketplace of ideas to decide. What you're suggesting is that the government can decide who gets to cover them based on how they report the news concerning the White House. That's not how it works.

---

Again, how was it not "discrimination" for Biden to only allow friendly questions, prescribed questions, to a select chosen people at a PRESS CONFERENCE?

Yet Trump takes away privileged access to the Ival and AF1, places he has ZERO obligation to provide them access to?

Don't you see the problem? Not familiar with the Maricopa case but if that was a public meeting or hearing again that is a completely different fact sets. AF1 and the Oval are privileges that can be revoked.

Period.

---

It's not discrimination. Nor would it be if Trump decided he only took questions from OAN, Newsmax, or whoever he wanted to take questions from at a press briefing.

If Trump wanted to stop allowing press pools on AF1 or the Oval Office, he could do so today if he wanted, and there wouldn't be anything anyone could do about it. But, if you're going to allow press access, and you ban journalists who say mean things about you that give you a case of the asschafe, then you e got a 1A problem.
To your question about the GP/Maricopa County case, GP sought a press pass to attend press briefings. That fact pattern is fairly similar.

samurai_science said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

It's not about giving specific access. It's about revoking access because someone says mean things about the government. That's viewpoint discrimination, and it's not permitted under our constitution.

The government doesn't get to decide what the truth is; that's for the marketplace of ideas to decide. What you're suggesting is that the government can decide who gets to cover them based on how they report the news concerning the White House. That's not how it works.

---

They can cover them from the parking lot.

---

So you're fine if your local school board would deny you access to a public meeting because you said things they didn't like.

HTownAg98 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

captkirk said:

---

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

---

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

---

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

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

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

---

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

---

I think Trump's mistake was saying out loud why he removed the AP. He should have just removed them under the guise that there are only so many media slots available and there are other outlets that deserve a chance.

Even if the AP spot is restored, the press secretary doesn't have to call on them. If they blurt out questions, they can be ignored and then you can have them removed for being disorderly and not waiting to be called upon.

Most politicians are smart enough to at least thinly veil their reasoning to not run afoul of the first amendment.

As for the AP being removed for disorderly conduct, that might be possible if the government follows the process in place. In the Karem and Acosta cases, their passes were restored on fifth amendment claims; the court never got to the first amendment question.

You're trying to make others think past the sale and using unequal analogies.

The "press pool" (let alone the oval or AF1) is not a unique institution. It is merely an event held inside the executive residence where executive representatives interface with invited attendees who they expect will produce "news" as press reporting.

Your veil slips when you say it's about the optics of this exclusion more so than the fact of it. The truth is: the concept of a press corp was created by the executive to benefit the executive. It has always been a political calculus for the admin's net benefit and the degree to which outside organizations get access & control of attendee list for these executive events has never had grounds in a simple reading of the constitution.

As others have said: all news networks are free to say what they want from the sidewalk or parking lot.

Tradition, norms, institutions, expectations, and procedures can all be useful, but violation of these does not "a constitutional violation" create. Even precedent is short of that.

jrdaustin said:

---

Here's another interesting, albiet unrelated, angle.

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

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

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

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

This is long overdue to be reformed.

---

This may be Trump's way out of that den of activists. Just abolish the whole thing and set up a fireside chat or town hall type process where MORE of the media around the country is able to attend either by proxy or in person.

In other words, get rid of the entire room and format that allows the MSM to be so badgering activist and able to suppress independence of thought.

"Our hostile super duper special club gets to control your events!"

"Oh really?"

"Yeah - an activist judge says so!"

"In that case: no more WHCA events. In a completely unrelated note: the White House's first Publisher's Informational will be held tomorrow - same room - same time - and by White House invitation only."

MSM = USAID

Looking forward to the ap losing this and Jim Acosta melting down.

HTownAg98 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Pundit

---

Gateway Pundit got a favorable ruling on the preliminary injunction (which is what they asked for) on appeal, and then Maricopa County relented and gave them a pass. That sounds like a decision to me.

---

You really should go to law school before playing as a lawyer. Something that happens in the Ninth Circus has no precedence in the DC circuit. It's persuasive but not precedent. Which is what you argued

HTownAg98 said:

---

samurai_science said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

It's not about giving specific access. It's about revoking access because someone says mean things about the government. That's viewpoint discrimination, and it's not permitted under our constitution.

The government doesn't get to decide what the truth is; that's for the marketplace of ideas to decide. What you're suggesting is that the government can decide who gets to cover them based on how they report the news concerning the White House. That's not how it works.

---

They can cover them from the parking lot.

---

So you're fine if your local school board would deny you access to a public meeting because you said things they didn't like.

---

Since when is the Oval Office a public meeting place? I was always under the impression that it's the President's Office and access is tightly controlled.

the most cool guy said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

The Biden administration was literally censoring Americans on social media. Having their posts removed for "misinformation" that was actually "information."

---

it's still hilarious to me that republicans turned the biden admin asking facebook and twitter to take down hunter's d*** pics into an existential free speech crisis, different strokes i guess

---

Yeah, that's totally the only thing the Dems censored. Hunter's dick pics. Right.

What a pathetic attempt at a straw man. You're either a liar or functionally brain dead.

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

Your veil slips when you say it's about the optics of this exclusion more so than the fact of it. The truth is: the concept of a press corp was created by the executive to benefit the executive. It has always been a political calculus for the admin's net benefit and the degree to which outside organizations get access & control of attendee list for these executive events has never had grounds in a simple reading of the constitution.

---

This is flatly incorrect. Anytime the government opens its doors and invites the press, they cannot disallow someone from attending because they say things the government doesn't like. And there's decades of court precedent that confirm that.

Quote:

---

Tradition, norms, institutions, expectations, and procedures can all be useful, but violation of these does not "a constitutional violation" create. Even precedent is short of that.

---

Citation needed.

Ha make believe lawyers. Lol

aggiejayrod said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

samurai_science said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

It's not about giving specific access. It's about revoking access because someone says mean things about the government. That's viewpoint discrimination, and it's not permitted under our constitution.

The government doesn't get to decide what the truth is; that's for the marketplace of ideas to decide. What you're suggesting is that the government can decide who gets to cover them based on how they report the news concerning the White House. That's not how it works.

---

They can cover them from the parking lot.

---

So you're fine if your local school board would deny you access to a public meeting because you said things they didn't like.

---

Since when is the Oval Office a public meeting place? I was always under the impression that it's the President's Office and access is tightly controlled.

---

It is. Which is why a journalist has to pass a background check to gain access. But since that's a content-neutral policy, that's fine.

Wait … just a few years ago, the woke left said that "complaining about freedom of speech" was just a tool of White supremacy. No, I'm not making this up. Search for yourself.

HTownAg98 said:

---

aggiejayrod said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

samurai_science said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

It's not about giving specific access. It's about revoking access because someone says mean things about the government. That's viewpoint discrimination, and it's not permitted under our constitution.

The government doesn't get to decide what the truth is; that's for the marketplace of ideas to decide. What you're suggesting is that the government can decide who gets to cover them based on how they report the news concerning the White House. That's not how it works.

---

They can cover them from the parking lot.

---

So you're fine if your local school board would deny you access to a public meeting because you said things they didn't like.

---

Since when is the Oval Office a public meeting place? I was always under the impression that it's the President's Office and access is tightly controlled.

---

It is. Which is why a journalist has to pass a background check to gain access. But since that's a content-neutral policy, that's fine.

---

Right, only the WHCA can discriminate on who goes into the President's office. The President has to meet with whoever they deem worthy.

HTownAg98 said:

---

Anytime the government opens its doors and invites the press, they cannot disallow someone from attending because they say things the government doesn't like.

---

REALLY?!? You're going with this?!?

A. The WH doesn't "open its doors" to the press. The Dubuque Quarterly ain't getting in no matter how hard they try. This isn't a town square: these are capacity limited event controlled by gatekeepers. Aka special access.

B. All administrations have excluded and limited the presence of press entities based on the content they publish.

C. You still haven't even made an attempt to explain the argument for how exclusion from special events violates the 1st amendment. Courts are wrong every day and parroting "precedent precedent precedent" doesn't make for coherency.

Didn't Trump lose a similar case during his 1st term with CNN and one of their goons?

The ruling was wrong then and if the courts rule in the AP's favor, it will be wrong again. As already has been stated, close shop and tell the press to eat **** if the court rules for the AP. I personally think these pressers are a waste of tax payer dollars.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Anytime the government opens its doors and invites the press, they cannot disallow someone from attending because they say things the government doesn't like.

---

REALLY?!? You're going with this?!?

A. The WH doesn't "open its doors" to the press. The Dubuque Quarterly ain't getting in no matter how hard they try. This isn't a town square: these are capacity limited event controlled by gatekeepers. Aka special access.

B. All administrations have excluded and limited the presence of press entities based on the content they publish.

C. You still haven't even made an attempt to explain the argument for how exclusion from special events violates the 1st amendment. Courts are wrong every day and parroting "precedent precedent precedent" doesn't make for coherency.

---

Indeed, the White House can limit access based on space constraints. That's a content neutral reason to limit access. And there's a process for getting a press pass. If you met the qualifications, any media member can get one. The Dubuque Quarterly isn't going to apply for a pass because they have different news they want to cover. But any news group that wants to apply for a pass can theoretically get one. Hell, the press secretary IS ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO APPLY FOR PASSES.

Quote:

---

MS. LEAVITT: Yeah, absolutely. And as I said in my opening statement, Matt, it is a priority of this White House to honor the First Amendment. And it is a fact that Americans are consuming their news media from various different platforms, especially young people. And as the youngest press secretary in history, thanks to President Trump, I take great pride in opening up this room to new media voices to share the president's message with as many Americans as possible.
In doing so, number one, we will ensure that outlets like yours Axios and Breitbart, which are widely respected and viewed outlets have an actual seat in this room every day. We also, again, encourage anybody in this country whether you are a TikTok content creator, a blogger, a podcaster if you are producing legitimate news content, no matter the medium, you will be allowed to apply for press credentials to this White House.
And as I said earlier, our new media website is WhiteHouse.gov/NewMedia, and so we encourage people to apply. Again, as long as you are creating news-related content of the day and you're a legitimate independent journalist, you're welcome to cover this White House.

---

If government is denying access due to viewpoint, whether it's Obama, Biden, Trump, it doesn't matter. It's wrong and should not happen.

Precedent is what we have to go by until a court says otherwise, and I've explained my position multiple times already. You sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "La la la undeterred" doesn't sway me.

I don't think anyone here is worried about swaying you.

BTKAG97 said:

---

Didn't Trump lose a similar case during his 1st term with CNN and one of their goons?

The ruling was wrong then and if the courts rule in the AP's favor, it will be wrong again. As already has been stated, close shop and tell the press to eat **** if the court rules for the AP. I personally think these pressers are a waste of tax payer dollars.

---

Agree. The idea that he's obligated to include the AP is so damn idiotic it's infuriating to debate. So the rule is, if a particular media company has been included, they can't simply be unincluded for whatever reason. But, if a media company has never been included, they can continue to be unincluded for whatever reason.

Rockdoc said:

---

I don't think anyone here is worried about swaying you.

---

Thank you for your riveting insight.

HTownAg98 said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

I don't think anyone here is worried about swaying you.

---

Thank you for your riveting insight.

---

No problem. And I'm not a lawyer either. Go figure.

HTownAg98 said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Anytime the government opens its doors and invites the press, they cannot disallow someone from attending because they say things the government doesn't like.

---

REALLY?!? You're going with this?!?

A. The WH doesn't "open its doors" to the press. The Dubuque Quarterly ain't getting in no matter how hard they try. This isn't a town square: these are capacity limited event controlled by gatekeepers. Aka special access.

B. All administrations have excluded and limited the presence of press entities based on the content they publish.

C. You still haven't even made an attempt to explain the argument for how exclusion from special events violates the 1st amendment. Courts are wrong every day and parroting "precedent precedent precedent" doesn't make for coherency.

---

Indeed, the White House can limit access based on space constraints. That's a content neutral reason to limit access. And there's a process for getting a press pass. If you met the qualifications, any media member can get one. The Dubuque Quarterly isn't going to apply for a pass because they have different news they want to cover. But any news group that wants to apply for a pass can theoretically get one. Hell, the press secretary IS ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO APPLY FOR PASSES.

Quote:

---

MS. LEAVITT: Yeah, absolutely. And as I said in my opening statement, Matt, it is a priority of this White House to honor the First Amendment. And it is a fact that Americans are consuming their news media from various different platforms, especially young people. And as the youngest press secretary in history, thanks to President Trump, I take great pride in opening up this room to new media voices to share the president's message with as many Americans as possible.
In doing so, number one, we will ensure that outlets like yours Axios and Breitbart, which are widely respected and viewed outlets have an actual seat in this room every day. We also, again, encourage anybody in this country whether you are a TikTok content creator, a blogger, a podcaster if you are producing legitimate news content, no matter the medium, you will be allowed to apply for press credentials to this White House.
And as I said earlier, our new media website is WhiteHouse.gov/NewMedia, and so we encourage people to apply. Again, as long as you are creating news-related content of the day and you're a legitimate independent journalist, you're welcome to cover this White House.

---

If government is denying access due to viewpoint, whether it's Obama, Biden, Trump, it doesn't matter. It's wrong and should not happen.

Precedent is what we have to go by until a court says otherwise, and I've explained my position multiple times already. You sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "La la la undeterred" doesn't sway me.

---

You neglected to address the point I made regarding Biden only calling on reporters favorable to him. Even KJP was very restrictive in who she called on.

The AP reporter was banned for being a ****** canoe. That fits under the discretion of POTUS and its content neutral.

You really fail to see they were not banned for wrong think, they were banned for being an obstructive, disruptive PITA and he had enough.

There is no 1A issue at all here. The press has the most access in the history of civilization to Trump. That MEETS fully the 1A part of the Constitution. There are folks who still have their access who say mean things about Trump, but you seem to conveniently ignore.

It's funny, people are calling the MAGA movement genius as it revolves around common sense.

When it comes to the law, a little practical common sense needs to be applied, liberal judges and keyboard legal pundits included.