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

[Couchpotato]

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.

Are you saying the current administration doesn't have a reason? They are just flipping a coin or something?

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

Why would that matter? What's the number? Why that number? Seems arbitrary.... If they fall below that number then an administration would be justified in kicking them out? If I can get that number of followers on X or Instagram does that qualify? Blac China has 5 million more subscribers than NYT. If she put in for a Press Credential, should she get one?

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.

I dont understand why anyone thinks any individual or outlet has any right to ever have a "press credential" or that the WH would have to issue any press passes.

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.

Those are 2 wildly different things though. You not getting a press credential to the WH or Pentagon doesn't abridge your right to speak, act as a reporter, or anything other than sitting in the press room while whoever from the WH is telling you whatever bullshit they happen to be telling the press corps that day.

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.

It doesn't restrict press access. They have access to the same information as every other press outlet or journalist that doesn't get to attend those press briefings. What information do you think the NYT or Fox news reporters at the WH get that everyone else doesn't. And if they are getting additional information that should be the issue not whether they get their little " your special badge" because that would be abridging the 1st amendment rights of all the press outlets/journalists who dont get a credential.

 

[j-mac]

I forgot, you kids are allergic to facts.

Let me know if you actually ever post some…

 

[toobfreak]

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.

Tex, two whistleblowers for the IRS have just confirmed before the senate that while Biden was in office, they had Hunter Biden dead to rights on a number of crimes that lead back to Joe (he was just VP then) and were absolutely blocked from pursuing the matter much less reporting on it and had to fight just to keep their jobs. The only thing protecting Biden now is the statute of limitations, which now that has expired, they are now admitting happened.

Exclusive | IRS whistleblowers tell ‘Pod Force One’ of ‘unprecedented’ corruption swept ‘under rug’ by Hunter Biden pardon

The whistleblowers who have since been promoted to leadership positions in the IRS, said the former first family had undue influence on their investigation into Hunter Biden’s finances.

nypost.com

There's much more to it than I linked to, and you are wrong, any decision to quash negative news on reporting on top government officials by media was coerced under pressure by the government. Just ask Zuckerberg.

Biden administration coerced social media giants into possible free speech violations: court

The White House may have violated First Amendment rights by pressuring tech companies to suppress or remove posts, 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled.

www.usatoday.com

Mark Zuckerberg says Biden officials would 'scream' and 'curse' when seeking removal of Facebook content

The Meta CEO said on a podcast that administration officials had asked the company to remove certain posts, including "things that are true."

www.nbcnews.com

Zuckerberg says the White House pressured Facebook to 'censor' some COVID-19 content during the pandemic

Zuckerberg alleges that the officials, including those from the White House, "repeatedly pressured" Facebook for months to take down "certain COVID-19 content including humor and satire."

www.pbs.org

There is a tremendous unholy legion of cooperation between government and the media who are supposed to be there as watchdogs, not lapdogs. Only this has all amazingly seemingly fallen apart now with the Trumpster in office. No doubt this and much like it is at the heart of the Pentagon now trying to wrest control of who and how reporters now gain access to sensitive information and the reason behind why now they are trying to control the press.

 

[forkup]

I dont understand why anyone thinks any individual or outlet has any right to ever have a "press credential" or that the WH would have to issue any press passes.

I'm not suprised you don't understand why the public has a right to question and investigate the acts of the government, which is the point of press passes. To give reporters access to the government and it's officials.

The fact of the matter is that the MAGA movement has replaced the idea of a government for the people, by the people with the notion that the president and the executive branch in general should have as few constraints put on them as possible. But only when that president is Trump.

It's why OKTexas thinks a judge is an activist the moment their rulings curtail the power of the executive. And you think it's OK to restrict the press the moment their reporting is negative

 

[OKTexas]

I'm not suprised you don't understand why the public has a right to question and investigate the acts of the government, which is the point of press passes. To give reporters access to the government and it's officials.

The fact of the matter is that the MAGA movement has replaced the idea of a government for the people, by the people with the notion that the president and the executive branch in general should have as few constraints put on them as possible. But only when that president is Trump.

It's why OKTexas thinks a judge is an activist the moment their rulings curtail the power of the executive. And you think it's OK to restrict the press the moment their reporting is negative

Wrong, it's a separation of powers issue. The judicial branch has no more constitutional authority to set the rules for the executive branch than the executive branch has to set the rules for the judiciary or congress. It's a really simple concept.

.

 

[forkup]

Wrong, it's a separation of powers issue. The judicial branch has no more constitutional authority to set the rules for the executive branch than the executive branch has to set the rules for the judiciary or congress. It's a really simple concept.

.

It's pretty amuzing how you start a reply with the word wrong and then use the rest of it to show that I'm right.

If I say that the MAGA movement wants to put as few constraints put on them as possible and you reply by stating that rules set by the executive are immune to judicial review you are making my point NOT countering it.

I'm well aware it's a seperation of powers issue. Just like I'm aware your reply shows a fundamental misunderstanding with what is meant by the term.

Separation of powers is not an immunization against the power of the seperate branches. It's ensuring accountability to them.

In essence, the legistlative branch makes laws, the executive executes them and the judiciary abjucates those laws when conflicts arise. Your opinion that the executive can simply make rules that are free from any judicial review flies in the face of 250 years of history.

 

[Couchpotato]

I'm not suprised you don't understand why the public has a right to question and investigate the acts of the government,

That's not what I said. The public most certainly does and while the press plays a part in that Congress is the investigative arm of the people not the press. The "press" doesn't work for "the people". And there is no investigative reporting coming out of the Presidential Press pool even if they did.

which is the point of press passes. To give reporters access to the government and it's officials.

No that's not the point of press passes.

The fact of the matter is that the MAGA movement has replaced the idea of a government for the people, by the people with the notion that the president and the executive branch in general should have as few constraints put on them as possible. But only when that president is Trump.

My opinion on this topic has nothing to do with Trump or MAGA.

It's why OKTexas thinks a judge is an activist the moment their rulings curtail the power of the executive. And you think it's OK to restrict the press the moment their reporting is negative

Not issuing a press pass is not a restriction on the press or what they can report if it were every journalist and new outlet would be entitled to one.

 

[forkup]

That's not what I said. The public most certainly does and while the press plays a part in that Congress is the investigative arm of the people not the press. The "press" doesn't work for "the people". And there is no investigative reporting coming out of the Presidential Press pool even if they did.

The reason the press is called out as a profession in the first amendment and specifically that they should be allowed to work unimpeded says that the founders most definetly saw their role as crucial. And yes there is. In fact, a lot of leaks either inadvrertently or deliberatly come from press pools. They aren't there as stenographers but as reporters.

My opinion on this topic has nothing to do with Trump or MAGA.

Highly doubtful. Since I'm pretty sure you didn't have this amount of defference to the executive branch when Biden was in power.

Not issuing a press pass is not a restriction on the press

It is when the reason for that non-issue is adverserial reporting.

See the nice thing about Trump and his henchman is that they say the quiet bit out loud.

 

[Couchpotato]

The reason the press is called out as a profession in the first amendment and specifically that they should be allowed to work unimpeded says that the founders most definetly saw their role as crucial.

Sure, but that doesn't require the Government to do anything it's a restriction on the Government not something granted to the Press. Where in the 1st amendment does it grant special access to the press? I'll wait.

And yes there is. In fact, a lot of leaks either inadvrertently or deliberatly come from press pools. They aren't there as stenographers but as reporters.

Really? When is the last time there was investigative journalism that came out of the press pool?

Highly doubtful. Since I'm pretty sure you didn't have this amount of defference to the executive branch when Biden was in power.

This isn't deference to an admin. Not everything is political.

It is when the reason for that non-issue is adverserial reporting.

Again, the 1st amendment doesn't grant the press unfettered access or special access or any access at all to the Government frankly. It just restricts the Government from "abridging the press".

See the nice thing about Trump and his henchman is that they say the quiet bit out loud.

Get out of the cult. Not everything is about Trump.

 

[OKTexas]

It's pretty amuzing how you start a reply with the word wrong and then use the rest of it to show that I'm right.

If I say that the MAGA movement wants to put as few constraints put on them as possible and you reply by stating that rules set by the executive are immune to judicial review you are making my point NOT countering it.

I'm well aware it's a seperation of powers issue. Just like I'm aware your reply shows a fundamental misunderstanding with what is meant by the term.

Separation of powers is not an immunization against the power of the seperate branches. It's ensuring accountability to them.

In essence, the legistlative branch makes laws, the executive executes them and the judiciary abjucates those laws when conflicts arise. Your opinion that the executive can simply make rules that are free from any judicial review flies in the face of 250 years of history.

The courts have no say who is granted access to executive branch facilities. Just like the executive has no authority to tell the courts which lawyers may argue cases before them. The both set their own bar for access, pun intended.

.

 

[Marener]

The courts have no say who is granted access to executive branch facilities. Just like the executive has no authority to tell the courts which lawyers may argue cases before them. The both set their own bar for access, pun intended.

.

The executive still has to follow the constitution.

For example, let’s say the president said no black people could enter the pentagon.

The courts would be able to tell them not to do it.

 

[WEATHER53]

Judges have no dominion over press conference protocols

 

[OKTexas]

The executive still has to follow the constitution.

For example, let’s say the president said no black people could enter the pentagon.

The courts would be able to tell them not to do it.

Race is not at issue here.

.

 

[Marener]

Race is not at issue here.

.

True. I’m just refuting your claim that the judicial branch doesn’t have the authority. They do when the executive is violating the constitution.

If it’s not constitutional to refuse access to someone based on race, couldn’t that principle extend to other characteristics?

 

[candycorn]

Federal judge rules against restrictive Pentagon press policy

The policy sought to bar news outlets from reporting information not officially sanctioned for release by agency heads.

www.usatoday.com

Watching the GOP get legally pantsed again is my favorite genre of comedy. A federal judge just nuked your authoritarian Pentagon press ban because…surprise!…the First Amendment actually exists.

You hypocrites scream about "freedom" non-stop, then try to lock out journalists because your egos are too soft to handle tough questions. Absolute clown behavior.
Hegseth allowed only right wing ass kissing outlets like the Gateway Pundit to pitch the softballs. The real press corps is laughing:

Hegseth tried to legally bully the press, then got relentlessly body-slammed by a judge, the New York Times and others are laughing.
View attachment 1233277

A rare win for the good guys

 

[WEATHER53]

True. I’m just refuting your claim that the judicial branch doesn’t have the authority. They do when the executive is violating the constitution.

If it’s no constitutional to refuse access to someone based on race, couldn’t that principle extend to other characteristics?

There is not constitutional provision that covers presidential press conference protocols. Stop presenting your feelings and wishes as facts

 

[Marener]

There is not constitutional provision that covers presidential press conference protocols. Stop presenting your feelings and wishes as facts

Are you sure that free speech and free press aren’t relevant?

 

[WEATHER53]

True. I’m just refuting your claim that the judicial branch doesn’t have the authority. They do when the executive is violating the constitution.

If it’s not constitutional to refuse access to someone based on race, couldn’t that principle extend to other characteristics?

Extension via feelings and wishes snd hypothetical
Lib 101

 

[OKTexas]

True. I’m just refuting your claim that the judicial branch doesn’t have the authority. They do when the executive is violating the constitution.

If it’s not constitutional to refuse access to someone based on race, couldn’t that principle extend to other characteristics?

What you're missing is race is codified in law, reporter access is not.

.

 

[Marener]

What you're missing is race is codified in law, reporter access is not.

.

Not sure what you mean by “codified in law”.

Let’s say the pentagon said no access for black reporters. Is that allowed?