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

[WEATHER53]

If the Pentagon is going to issue press passes, they have to do so in a non-discriminatory fashion that does not violate the constitution.

And there are no constitutional identifications of exclusion from press conferences.
Government cannot squash what might be reported but it’s their judgement as to access. You are moving goalposts and changing word definitions

 

[Marener]

And there are no constitutional identifications of exclusion from press conferences.
Government cannot squash what might be reported but it’s their judgement as to access. You are moving goalposts and changing word definitions

The Pentagon issued a policy with criteria for being able to get a press pass which discriminated on the basis of viewpoint.

Hence, the policy was unconstitutional.

 

[OKTexas]

Me personally? No.

But I'm not the government and I am not bound by the 1st amendment.

The government is not allowed to engage in viewpoint discrimination. The government cannot limit someone's press pass because they won't publish stories favorable to them.

Really, I'm not finding a persons viewpoint as protected right. The fact is, a reporter can say anything they want, they just don't have a right to talk to someone beforehand, if that individual doesn't want to talk to them. The individual the reporter is wanting to talk to has rights too.

.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Really, I'm not finding a persons viewpoint as protected right.

Well, that's why judges go to law school, I guess.

 

[Marener]

Really, I'm not finding a persons viewpoint as protected right. The fact is, a reporter can say anything they want, they just don't have a right to talk to someone beforehand, if that individual doesn't want to talk to them. The individual the reporter is wanting to talk to has rights too.

.

The lawsuit is about issuing press passes. It seems you're a little confused about this because you're talking about a "right to talk to someone"

Viewpoint discrimination is unconstitutional. This goes back a long time in court precedent.

Viewpoint Discrimination

Viewpoint discrimination occurs when the government singles out a particular opinion or perspective on that subject matter for treatment unlike that given to other viewpoints.

firstamendment.mtsu.edu

 

[Frankeneinstein]

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.

so...he'll just go back to the old way and not hold PC's

TRANSLATION: "bwaaaaaaaaaa...he calls that his manhood"

 

[WEATHER53]

The Pentagon issued a policy with criteria for being able to get a press pass which discriminated on the basis of viewpoint.

Hence, the policy was unconstitutional.

I gotta find the “viewpoint” protection clause in the constitution. Will you direct all of us to that identification?

 

[WEATHER53]

The lawsuit is about issuing press passes. It seems you're a little confused about this because you're talking about a "right to talk to someone"

Viewpoint discrimination is unconstitutional. This goes back a long time in court precedent.

Viewpoint Discrimination

Viewpoint discrimination occurs when the government singles out a particular opinion or perspective on that subject matter for treatment unlike that given to other viewpoints.

firstamendment.mtsu.edu

And see all that does is try, and fail, to identify what they feel “viewpoint discrimination “is . Now how this is constitutional law is explainable only to lib loons

 

[OKTexas]

Well, that's why judges go to law school, I guess.

I think that judge went to magic school, they're pulling shit out of thin air.

.

 

[Marener]

I gotta find the “viewpoint” protection clause in the constitution. Will you direct all of us to that identification?

It’s a part of the first amendment.

You can’t have free speech if the government is allowed to discriminate against you on the basis of the content of your speech.

 

[Marener]

I think that judge went to magic school, they're pulling shit out of thin air.

.

Did you read the decision?

 

[OKTexas]

The lawsuit is about issuing press passes. It seems you're a little confused about this because you're talking about a "right to talk to someone"

Viewpoint discrimination is unconstitutional. This goes back a long time in court precedent.

Viewpoint Discrimination

Viewpoint discrimination occurs when the government singles out a particular opinion or perspective on that subject matter for treatment unlike that given to other viewpoints.

firstamendment.mtsu.edu

And what does a pass get you? Can you say, access to people that may not want to talk to you? As I said, those folks have rights too.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Did you read the decision?

Yep. And it's bs, it should be overturned on appeal. Damn, I think I said that in my very first post.

.

 

[Marener]

And what does a pass get you? Can you say, access to people that may not want to talk to you? As I said, those folks have rights too.

.

Yep. And it's bs, it should be overturned on appeal. Damn, I think I said that in my very first post.

.

You haven’t really addressed the arguments in the decision.

Your issue about “freedom of association” doesn’t make any sense. No one is forcing anyone to talk to the press.

The heart of the argument is about viewpoint discrimination, but there’s other reasons as well including due process.

Hegseth only wants to issue press passes to reporters who will report favorably of the administration. That’s viewpoint discrimination.

 

[OKTexas]

You haven’t really addressed the arguments in the decision.

Your issue about “freedom of association” doesn’t make any sense. No one is forcing anyone to talk to the press.

The heart of the argument is about viewpoint discrimination, but there’s other reasons as well including due process.

Hegseth only wants to issue press passes to reporters who will report favorably of the administration. That’s viewpoint discrimination.

Yeah, you can spin it that way, it's about access to government facilities and whether an agency can set their own rules for that access. The court seems to think they have the authority to set the rules for access to government agencies.

.

 

[Marener]

Yeah, you can spin it that way, it's about access to government facilities and whether an agency can set their own rules for that access. The court seems to think they have the authority to set the rules for access to government agencies.

.

Yes, the government can set rules for access, but those rules cannot violate the constitution.

That’s why I first brought up that government can’t make rules banning someone based on race.

Likewise, they can’t ban someone based on viewpoint. At least not without passing strict scrutiny, which they don’t.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Easiest marks on the planet ^^

You’d rather believe an assumption?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I think that judge went to magic school, they're pulling shit out of thin air.

.

Yet you couldn't argue that if your life depended on it. This is just reflexive behavior

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You’d rather believe an assumption?

I think maybe you need a dictionary for Christmas.

 

[OKTexas]

Yes, the government can set rules for access, but those rules cannot violate the constitution.

That’s why I first brought up that government can’t make rules banning someone based on race.

Likewise, they can’t ban someone based on viewpoint. At least not without passing strict scrutiny, which they don’t.

So you're saying a reporter can have forced access, go out and lie their asses off, and nothing can be done about it? I don't believe that.

.