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

[IM2]

They are free to say whatever they want. That doesnt mean they are guaranteed access to the Pentagon or any other government building with restricted access. Should the Press be allowed free reign at the CIA or NSA? What's the limiting principle?

Actually, it does, because the people in the Pentagon/CIA/NSA work for us. They are answerable to us for their actions.

 

[OKTexas]

569 F.2d 124

This precedent, decided almost 50 years ago, is why the judge ruled as he did. And just because you can think of a way to circumvent the spirit of the law, if not the letter, doesn't mean this administration didn't do both, causing the judge to shoot them down.

So what research did you do?

So a reporter with a criminal history was denied a WH press pass and some activist judge said they didn't do it right, color me shocked.

.

 

[forkup]

What law would be circumvented by not doing press conferences?

You know, one of the nice features of this board is that you can push the arrows, making it possible to follow the conversation back and get the full context of what's being said. Maybe try it.

If you did, you would have seen I started by citing the first amendment, that states the government can't abridge the freedom of the press. You would then see that when challenged, I further specified the government did that by holding press conferences but denying access to certain outlets by issuing arbitrary rules and enforcing those rules selectively. To which OK Texas replied that this could be 'fixed' by not holding press conferences at all but holding private interviews instead. This would still, of course, deny access to unfavored outlets, and grant it to favored ones.

 

[OKTexas]

It applies to the complete freedom of speech. You guys whine because people call the racist/miogynist/ xenophobic/homophobic garbage you spew taking away your first amendment rights but anything this adminitration does to silence dissent, you guys agree with.

Exactly what are people prevented from saying?

.

 

[forkup]

So a reporter with a criminal history was denied a WH press pass and some activist judge said they didn't do it right, color me shocked.

.

Why is every judge(s) (it was confirmed on appeal) an 'activist'. An accusation that makes little sense by the way since the precedent was set in 1977.

It seems to me you WANT judges to decide on political affiliation as long as he is affiliated to you. Since the definition of 'activist' as far as I can tell for you is "he or she decided something that doesn't agree with whatever political goal I prefer"

 

[toobfreak]

And if you do a bit of research, you'll find the "freedom of the press" is the government can't pre-censor the press, in other words, tell them what they could or could not print.

Actually, Joe Biden did just that. When Joe was in office, several news media later reported that his administration contacted several news agencies excoriating them for printing a less-than-favorable story on Joe and demanded they either pull it or not publish more!

Yet, DANG! I don't remember a single district federal judge complaining or saying a thing.

Former Reporters for Politico Claim Outlet Squashed Negative Stories About the Bidens

'And I was told this came from on high at Politico: Don’t write about the laptop, don’t talk about the laptop, don’t tweet about the laptop.'

legalinsurrection.com

The Biden Administration Waged War on Free Speech with 57 Censorship Initiatives

President Joe Biden and his administration spent four years continuously attacking the First Amendment and the free speech rights enshrined by the nation’s Founders. The Biden administration’s censorship efforts ran the gamut from coercing and colluding with Big Tech platforms to silence his...

mrcfreespeechamerica.org

 

[Couchpotato]

Actually, it does, because the people in the Pentagon/CIA/NSA work for us. They are answerable to us for their actions.

They can submit a FOIA request, but those agencies aren't answerable to the press. They ARE answerable to Congress. That's the avenue through which the electorate holds an executive agency accountable. Want to try again?

 

[Couchpotato]

You know, one of the nice features of this board is that you can push the arrows, making it possible to follow the conversation back and get the full context of what's being said. Maybe try it.

If you did, you would have seen I started by citing the first amendment, that states the government can't abridge the freedom of the press. You would then see that when challenged, I further specified the government did that by holding press conferences but denying access to certain outlets by issuing arbitrary rules and enforcing those rules selectively. To which OK Texas replied that this could be 'fixed' by not holding press conferences at all but holding private interviews instead. This would still, of course, deny access to unfavored outlets, and grant it to favored ones.

Not giving a press conference doesn't abridge the freedom of the press, nor does not issuing them "press credentials" to a restricted building. Not supplying them with work areas in that building doesn't abridge their freedom either. Neither does having a press conference where you only allow certain press to attend. I can guarantee you that 100% of press conferences given by every administration since press conferences have been a thing have excluded some number of media outlets. They have to, and the reasoning for their exclusion is by definition arbitrary and set by the administration holding the press conference. Why does the NYT deserve a press credential to a Presidential or Pentagon press conference more than some random independent journalist? If I show up on the steps of the Pentagon and say I'm a journalist, should they be required to give me a credential, provide me with a desk and workspace and let me wander around the Pentagon asking people questions and then "reporting" it on Twitter? Is there some "journalist database" or certification or ID you show to prove you're a journalist? What's the limiting principle?

 

[Captain Creeper]

These TDS rulings by trial judges do not age well.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Nope, it's a fact.

Based on what?

 

[ThisIsMe]

Bullshit. It was one because Hegseth didn't like a picture.

I quoted the judge who made the ruling

 

[IM2]

They can submit a FOIA request, but those agencies aren't answerable to the press. They ARE answerable to Congress. That's the avenue through which the electorate holds an executive agency accountable. Want to try again?

They answer to the American people. The people can directly ask them, or they can have the press ask for them. That, along with what you say, is how it can be done. I'm sure if Harris were the president or if Lloyd Austin had done the same thing during Biden, you would be using the same defense....NOT!

You and the rest of the scum would be talking about him being a DEI pick who didn't know the rules.

 

[IM2]

I quoted the judge who made the ruling

I don't care what you quoted. I have posted studies, congressional bills made into law, federal policies, legal decisions, and historical facts that you have denied. So you can go directly to Hades. That judge was right, and it is time this fascist regime was stopped.

 

[Couchpotato]

They answered to the American people. The people can directly ask them, or they can have the press ask for them.

The Press doesnt work for the US public. The NYT isnt answerable to anyone in the US electorate. That's Congress.

That, along with what you say, is how it can be done. I'm sure if Harris were the president or if Lloyd Austin had done the same thing during Biden, you would be using the same defense....NOT!

Of course I would.

You and the rest of the scum would be talking about him being a DEI pick who didn't know the rules.

Based on what? You're projecting.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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

I'm sorry you're unable to participate in this conversation.

 

[ThisIsMe]

I'm sorry you're unable to participate in this conversation.

I’m the only one staying on track, you’re off in the weeds on something else

 

[frigidweirdo]

I’m the only one staying on track, you’re off in the weeds on something else

Again, I'm sorry you're unable to participate in this conversation. That you have to resort to "you're off track" because you can't understand it.

 

[OKTexas]

Why is every judge(s) (it was confirmed on appeal) an 'activist'. An accusation that makes little sense by the way since the precedent was set in 1977.

It seems to me you WANT judges to decide on political affiliation as long as he is affiliated to you. Since the definition of 'activist' as far as I can tell for you is "he or she decided something that doesn't agree with whatever political goal I prefer"

It's really simple, it should have ended when the judge was made aware of the "journalist" criminal record. Only some left wing hack would want a criminal routinely admitted to the WH press office,

.

 

[OKTexas]

Actually, Joe Biden did just that. When Joe was in office, several news media later reported that his administration contacted several news agencies excoriating them for printing a less-than-favorable story on Joe and demanded they either pull it or not publish more!

Yet, DANG! I don't remember a single district federal judge complaining or saying a thing.

Former Reporters for Politico Claim Outlet Squashed Negative Stories About the Bidens

'And I was told this came from on high at Politico: Don’t write about the laptop, don’t talk about the laptop, don’t tweet about the laptop.'

legalinsurrection.com

The Biden Administration Waged War on Free Speech with 57 Censorship Initiatives

President Joe Biden and his administration spent four years continuously attacking the First Amendment and the free speech rights enshrined by the nation’s Founders. The Biden administration’s censorship efforts ran the gamut from coercing and colluding with Big Tech platforms to silence his...

mrcfreespeechamerica.org

Your first story admits it was Politico that made the decision. Big tech colluding with the government is a whole different can of worms, not related to this thread.

.

 

[forkup]

he reasoning for their exclusion is by definition arbitrary

This is the definition of arbitrary.

1.
based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

Since all administrations before this had a reason And system for issuing press passes and access those decisions aren't definitionally arbitrary.

Why does the NYT deserve a press credential to a Presidential or Pentagon press conference more than some random independent journalist?

Because the NYT has a certain number of subscribers actually reading them, as an example of a non-arbitrary rule.

What's the limiting principle?

The limiting principle is

In our view, the procedural requirements of notice of the factual bases for denial, an opportunity for the applicant to respond to these, and a final written statement of the reasons for denial are compelled by the foregoing determination that the interest of a bona fide Washington correspondent in obtaining a White House press pass is protected by the first amendment. This first amendment interest undoubtedly qualifies as liberty which may not be denied without due process of law under the fifth amendment.22 The only further determination which this court must make is "what process is due," Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 481, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972).23 We think that notice to the unsuccessful applicant of the factual bases for denial with an opportunity to rebut is a minimum prerequisite for ensuring that the denial is indeed in furtherance of Presidential protection, rather than based on arbitrary or less than compelling reasons. 569 F.2d 124

In other words, not only need to be clear rules be established. You need to notify the people why they are being denied access. And the rules need to actually be relevant to the functioning of the department that is denying access. We don't like what they write for instance isn't that since that's not a compelling reason to deny access.


The funny thing is that most, if not all of you, blow a gasket when some random Democrat dares to suggest someone saying something offensive should be removed from a site or has no right to speak, claiming it violates the first amendment which it doesn't since BOTH are expressing opinions and neither is the government.

Yet here we are with you defending a decision BY the government to restrict press access because the government doesn't like what they write.