- Dec 16, 2017
- 17,617
- 8,722
- 475
do you?
AP wins reinstatement to White House events after judge rules government can’t bar its journalists
- Thread starter 1srelluc
- Start date
do you?
Crepitus
Diamond Member
- Mar 28, 2018
- 92,748
- 129,494
- 3,615
you tell me
martybegan
Diamond Member
- Apr 5, 2010
- 93,310
- 43,569
- 2,300
This wasn't about press conferences, it was about spaces on AF1 and special events at the white house I believe.
- Dec 16, 2017
- 17,617
- 8,722
- 475
Kinda?
The Duke
Diamond Member
- Jul 30, 2022
- 36,969
- 47,225
- 2,788
What if they're not journalists but treasonous propagandists?
A federal judge ordered the White House on Tuesday to restore The Associated Press’ full access to cover presidential events, affirming on First Amendment grounds that the government cannot punish the news organization for the content of its speech.
U.S. District Judge Trevor N. McFadden, an appointee of President Donald Trump, ruled that the government can't retaliate against the AP’s decision not to follow the president’s executive order to rename the Gulf of Mexico. The decision handed the AP a major victory at a time the White House has been challenging the press on several levels.
Make them fill out an application form, submit fingerprints and passport photos, and pass an FBI background check. And pay a $200 tax per news article. And then take 18 months to approve it.
Meh, just because they have access doesn't mean anyone has to take a question from them. They can simply be ignored.
Crepitus
Diamond Member
- Mar 28, 2018
- 92,748
- 129,494
- 3,615
In what way?
- Dec 16, 2017
- 17,617
- 8,722
- 475
I..uhh..dunno..i dun forgot what we were talking about......
Horseshit.
Denying press access is not equivalent to censoring speech.
Doesn't matter. Trump can do whatever he wants with the press. He's under no obligation to speak with them AT ALL.
He is free to choose whom he wants to speak with and when.
Or his press secretary can just lie her ass off like Biden's did.
Moonglow
Diamond Member
Ignorance is bliss since the courts ruled Trump wrong
excalibur
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2015
- 24,630
- 48,952
- 2,290
From the Motion for Stay pending appeal.
For the first time in history, and inconsistent with D.C. Circuit precedent, see Sherrill
v. Knight, 569 F.2d 124, 129 (D.C. Cir. 1977), a court issued an order to control access to the
President’s most intimate spaces: his personal workspace (the Oval Office), his means of
transportation (Air Force One), and his personal home (the Mar-a-Lago Club). It did so largely by
conducting a forum analysis, which is used by courts to evaluate restrictions on speech, and by
equating spaces for large press gatherings with more limited, personal spaces such as the Oval
Case 1:25-cv-00532-TNM- 2 - Office.
But there are no allegations that Defendants have restricted the Associated Press’s
speech—e.g., adopting content-based restrictions on what may be uttered in the Oval Office,
controlling any reporter’s ability to send text messages or photos in areas of the White House to
which they are admitted, or a prior restraint on the Associated Press’s publications.
Instead, this case is about special access to the president’s personal and private spaces, which the D.C. Circuit has refused to consider under a forum analysis. See Price v. Garland, 45 F.4th 1059, 1068 (D.C.
Cir. 2022) (finding forum analysis inappropriate to filmmaker’s recording endeavors; “ecause
a filmmaker does not seek to communicate with others at the location in which he or she films . .
. it would be a category error to apply the speech-protective rules of a public forum to regulation
of an activity that involves merely a noncommunicative step in the production of speech”);
Sherrill, 569 F.2d at 129
(“Nor is the discretion of the President to grant interviews or briefings
with selected journalists challenged. It would certainly be unreasonable to suggest that because the
President allows interviews with some bona fide journalists, he must give this opportunity to all.”).
Additionally, the Court should exercise caution and at least stay its ruling regarding the
Associated Press’s access to the Oval Office, Air Force One, and the Mar-a-Lago Club.
Underlying the Court’s ruling are profound separation of powers issues.
The Executive maintains that the President has the right to dictate who is permitted in his personal spaces for any reason, no less than any American has the right to dictate who enters their personal office space, vehicle, or home. It would be unreasonable for the President to lose the right to control who is in his private spaces (including his private home, the Mar-a-Lago Club) simply because he becomes President.
Moreover, until the questions presented in this case are resolved on appeal, the Court risks
unending litigation every time a reporter from the Associated Press is rejected for entry into the
press pool, Mar-a-Lago Club, Air Force One, or the Oval Office on grounds that the Associated
Case 1:25-cv-00532-TNM- 3 -
Press may find improper (or falsely speculate are pretextual) but have nothing to do with the
content of its speech. The Court should permit appellate review of this issue before imposing its
order.
v. Knight, 569 F.2d 124, 129 (D.C. Cir. 1977), a court issued an order to control access to the
President’s most intimate spaces: his personal workspace (the Oval Office), his means of
transportation (Air Force One), and his personal home (the Mar-a-Lago Club). It did so largely by
conducting a forum analysis, which is used by courts to evaluate restrictions on speech, and by
equating spaces for large press gatherings with more limited, personal spaces such as the Oval
Case 1:25-cv-00532-TNM- 2 - Office.
But there are no allegations that Defendants have restricted the Associated Press’s
speech—e.g., adopting content-based restrictions on what may be uttered in the Oval Office,
controlling any reporter’s ability to send text messages or photos in areas of the White House to
which they are admitted, or a prior restraint on the Associated Press’s publications.
Instead, this case is about special access to the president’s personal and private spaces, which the D.C. Circuit has refused to consider under a forum analysis. See Price v. Garland, 45 F.4th 1059, 1068 (D.C.
Cir. 2022) (finding forum analysis inappropriate to filmmaker’s recording endeavors; “ecause
a filmmaker does not seek to communicate with others at the location in which he or she films . .
. it would be a category error to apply the speech-protective rules of a public forum to regulation
of an activity that involves merely a noncommunicative step in the production of speech”);
Sherrill, 569 F.2d at 129
(“Nor is the discretion of the President to grant interviews or briefings
with selected journalists challenged. It would certainly be unreasonable to suggest that because the
President allows interviews with some bona fide journalists, he must give this opportunity to all.”).
Additionally, the Court should exercise caution and at least stay its ruling regarding the
Associated Press’s access to the Oval Office, Air Force One, and the Mar-a-Lago Club.
Underlying the Court’s ruling are profound separation of powers issues.
The Executive maintains that the President has the right to dictate who is permitted in his personal spaces for any reason, no less than any American has the right to dictate who enters their personal office space, vehicle, or home. It would be unreasonable for the President to lose the right to control who is in his private spaces (including his private home, the Mar-a-Lago Club) simply because he becomes President.
Moreover, until the questions presented in this case are resolved on appeal, the Court risks
unending litigation every time a reporter from the Associated Press is rejected for entry into the
press pool, Mar-a-Lago Club, Air Force One, or the Oval Office on grounds that the Associated
Case 1:25-cv-00532-TNM- 3 -
Press may find improper (or falsely speculate are pretextual) but have nothing to do with the
content of its speech. The Court should permit appellate review of this issue before imposing its
order.
Tumblin Tumbleweed
Platinum Member
- Mar 16, 2015
- 28,207
- 10,569
- 465
You're quite the snowflake.
They'll be overturned just like every other dumbass leftard judge.
The Associated Press is hardly an online blogger with five followers. Keeping the press out is an indication of oligarchy.
Maybe it's time we stopped spoon feeding the press their talking points, and make them start working for a living again.
excalibur
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2015
- 24,630
- 48,952
- 2,290
LOL
The judge ordered they be allowed in the Oval Office, on AF1, in MAL. Private spaces for the President.
And no, the 'press' is not being kept out. The AP does not appear in the Constitution.
They do what they do. They don't give a fuck about your spoon. Suppressing the fourth rail, which freedom of the press is in some document somewhere, is a sure path to dictator Hell.
Scoutster
Diamond Member
- Nov 11, 2024
- 1,628
- 1,625
- 1,903
Dude, you always sound mad, lost and confused like any partisan left or right when their cultist side is not winning. The party you think represents you doesn’t give a shit about you, not their leaders. You’re just a cultist member they use, you need help!
My advice is go enjoy the day and what little time you have left in your life and stop pretending you have any influence on world events on a message board. A minimalistic message board life is short figure it out or think living your life here means something.
LAUGHatLEFTISTS
Diamond Member
- Jan 22, 2020
- 17,208
- 15,787
- 2,290
As usual, you’re jut a moron,
Why is the Biden White House Kicking Reporters Out?
This week, we spoke to veteran White House Reporter Fred Lucas and Daily Signal Executive Editor Rob Bluey to find out what’s going on John Popp: From The Heritage Foundation, this is Heritage Explains.www.heritage.org
In July, the White House culled about 30% of the “hard passes” that allowed reporters into daily White House briefings.
Both of your statements in this post are facts.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
You can now read about the origins of Covid on the White House website
- Started by lennypartiv
- Replies: 1
-
-
Even Israel knows deporting people is the way to go
- Started by lennypartiv
- Replies: 1
-
