Hold This L: Judge curb-stomps the GOP's pathetic pentagon press ban

[JLW]

The judge should try educating themself on the separation of powers. Freedom of the press is freedom to print a story, it's not unfettered access to the executive branch. I hope they appeal this, the ruling should be reversed.

.

That wasn’t the issue before the Court. The issue is denying or revoking press access to the Pentagon based on arbitrary and vague rules with a possibility of those rules being used to punish those critical of the Pentagon or Hegseth, or engaging in investigative reporting. As the Court noted, those rules were already being used to grant press passes to the my pillow guy and James O’ Keefe. The rules banned journalists who had felonies but the Pentagon granted a pass to O’Keefe who had a felony record solely because he is a Trumpist toady. It was plain what the Pentagon is attempting.

The Pentagon wanted the NYTs and others to sign a flagrantly unconstitutional pledge which would have impeded them from doing their jobs, I.e. holding the government accountable.

The Court was right. This was a victory for the 1st Amendment…for now.

 

[Lockback]

The judge should try educating themself on the separation of powers. Freedom of the press is freedom to print a story, it's not unfettered access to the executive branch. I hope they appeal this, the ruling should be reversed.

.

Agree.
100%

 

[OKTexas]

That wasn’t the issue before the Court. The issue is denying or revoking press access to the Pentagon based on arbitrary and vague rules with a possibility of those rules being used to punish those critical of the Pentagon or Hegseth, or engaging in investigative reporting. As the Court noted, those rules were already being used to grant press passes to the my pillow guy and James O’ Keefe. The rules banned journalists who had felonies but the Pentagon granted a pass to O’Keefe who had a felony record solely because he is a Trumpist toady. It was plain what the Pentagon is attempting.

The Pentagon wanted the NYTs and others to sign a flagrantly unconstitutional pledge which would have impeded them from doing their jobs, I.e. holding the government accountable.

The Court was right. This was a victory for the 1st Amendment…for now.

It's all good, they can do their investigative reporting from the freaking streets, they have no constitutional right to enter the grounds of the Pentagon.

.

 

[JLW]

It's all good, they can do their investigative reporting from the freaking streets, they have no constitutional right to enter the grounds of the Pentagon.

.

Well, the gist of this dispute is that the federal government can not favor some press over other press just because that press is favorable to you, and the government can not enact rules that are vague and arbitrary that may be used to stop the press/media from doing their jobs.

 

[Lockback]

Well, the gist of this dispute is that the federal government can not favor some press over other press just because that press is favorable to you, and the government can not enact rules that are vague and arbitrary that may be used to stop the press/media from doing their jobs.

Laughable.

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

It's all good, they can do their investigative reporting from the freaking streets, they have no constitutional right to enter the grounds of the Pentagon.

.

Thanks for your verdict, Your Honor.

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

Agree.
100%

You’re lying about the judge saying the press has “unfettered” access.

 

[Lockback]

You’re lying about the judge saying the press has “unfettered” access.

You're the liar.
I said I agree with the post.
But because you hate me and don't want to take on a Moderator, you aim your weak fire at me.
**** off.

 

[OKTexas]

Well, the gist of this dispute is that the federal government can not favor some press over other press just because that press is favorable to you, and the government can not enact rules that are vague and arbitrary that may be used to stop the press/media from doing their jobs.

Once again, the court does not have the power to determine what rules the executive branch choses to put in place. There is no constitutional right for the press to access to anything in the government. Do you think the executive branch has the power to tell the courts they have to have live TV coverage in every proceeding?

.

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

You're the liar.
I said I agree with the post.
But because you hate me and don't want to take on a Moderator, you aim your weak fire at me.
**** off.

You agreed with the dumbass who said the judge gave the press the right to “unfettered” access to the executive.
Then you try to defend yourself by repeating that you agreed with the dumbass.

 

[OKTexas]

Thanks for your verdict, Your Honor.

Of course you can quote the portion of the Constitution that would prove me wrong, RIGHT?????

.

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

Of course you can quote the portion of the Constitution that would prove me wrong, RIGHT?????

.

You're the one who needs proof to your lie that the judge gave the press "unfettered" access. Liar.

 

[Lockback]

You agreed with the dumbass who said the judge gave the press the right to “unfettered” access to the executive.
Then you try to defend yourself by repeating that you agreed with the dumbass.
View attachment 1233315

The dumbass in this conversation is you.
As has been said, you don't have to have access to the Pentagon or the White House or your toilet to report on it.
By the way, you're a fraud. You're no "Conservative" and Ronald Reagan would be ashamed of you.
You're a lying fraud.

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

The dumbass in this conversation is you.
As has been said, you don't have to have access to the Pentagon or the White House or your toilet to report on it.

Deal: The Gateway Pundit and other right wing outlets will join the New York Times in working from outside.

 

[OKTexas]

You're the one who needs proof to your lie that the judge gave the press "unfettered" access. Liar.

I never said that's what the judge said, I stated what freedom of the press is. And just so you don't misquote me again, here's exactly what I said:

The judge should try educating themself on the separation of powers. Freedom of the press is freedom to print a story, it's not unfettered access to the executive branch. I hope they appeal this, the ruling should be reversed.

Now I'll renew my challenge, show me in the Constitution where I got it wrong.

.

 

[Darkwind]

Will be overturned.

 

[toobfreak]

You’re making progress.

Wish I could say the same thing. I've had more enlightened conversations with damp mops.

 

[forkup]

Once again, the court does not have the power to determine what rules the executive branch choses to put in place. There is no constitutional right for the press to access to anything in the government. Do you think the executive branch has the power to tell the courts they have to have live TV coverage in every proceeding?

.

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.

Pretty sure the press is mentioned SPECIFICALLY in the first amendment, and the executive branch denying press access to certain outlets is covered.

I'm also pretty sure that redress of grievances bit is done by petitioning the courts.

 

[berg80]

It was a paraphrase. The judge admitted that troop and war plan information was important but it was more important for the public to have transparency so he ordered that the press could release things not deemed “official statements”

He did nothing of the kind. Your insidious lie implying the media was inappropriately reporting on "troop and war plan information" is made more egregious by the fact that it was Hegseth, during an unsecure Signal chat conversation, that discussed attack plans. From the judge's ruling......................

For example, during the heated controversy over the publication of the Pentagon
Papers, the government fought The Times and The Washington Post in court rather than retaliating by attempting to exclude journalists from those organizations from the Pentagon. Notwithstanding the Department’s strong desire to prevent the Pentagon Papers’ release, the Department did not threaten to revoke the reporters’ credentials, and press briefings continued as normal. See Press Ass’n Br. at 6. Likewise, the Department did not attempt to exclude journalists from the Pentagon following the publication of stories describing the toxicity of Agent Orange used during the Vietnam War, or the reporting on the “Fat Leonard” corruption scandal involving serious threats to national security, or a host of other revelations from the media. See Committee Br. at 13-15. And as counsel for the Pentagon Press Association as amicus curiae recounted at oral argument:

When General Westmoreland was upset that CBS was reporting misinformation about the Vietnam War, he sued. But no reporter lost their credentials. When 60 Minutes published photos of Abu Ghraib, they did a public service. The Pentagon was upset, it was a disclosure of unauthorized information. But no one reached out to yank credentials.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.287334/gov.uscourts.dcd.287334.35.0_1.pdf

The ruling was that the Pentagon can't suspend the press credentials of reporters as a means to intimidate them in to only reporting information approved by the military.

 

[ThisIsMe]

"National security"... imagine what you could impose under the name of "national security".

Take away all rights, I mean, they're just a pain for national security, right? Who needs the right to vote? No, you vote if you're going to vote "the right way", voting left wing is just a threat to "national security".

Freedom of speech, great if you're talking about sucking off Trump, but if you criticize him, well.... "national security".

And where would Trump get such things? Well, where does he get most of his ideas from? Russia and China.

Why are you talking about trump? Were discussing the pentagon saying “ok look we only want you to release official statements, for security reasons”

It had nothing to do with the rest of what you said