Trump - First Amendment?

This is literally the government attempting to restrict speech about the government - the thing the 1st amendment is meant to protect against. The lawsuits have already begun. Hopefully, SCOTUS can once again discard its bias for Trump and protect America.

Trump will lose the case but that won’t stop him from trying to control the media.

The Trumpers always give him a pass, no matter what, I'm curious to see how our Trumpers defend this.

Same as always, I'm sure, ignore, ignore, ignore.

Sidewalker wrote:

Is Trump within his rights, is it legal, is he violating the 1st amendment?

I think it's pretty clear viewpoint discrimination, so a violation of the 1st amendment.

With 80 cases files against his executive orders and over 4,000 cases against his organization and personal conduct. Trump has no respect for the 1st Amendment.

What are you expecting a judge to rule? That every person in the country has access to your president's house at any time?

Sherrill v. Knight (D.C. Circuit, 1977) is the closest case I pulled up, the judge never ordered access, and Sherrill never got access after the case was won.

I doubt your legal system will be able to do anything for the same reason a Trump judge can't order CNN to air your president if they don't like what he says. A judge is very unlikely to say, “President, you must personally let this reporter into your event.” ...it's more likely, as in Sherrill, that rules will be rewritten, but the end result is that those outlets are never getting near your president again at his home.

Think of this as a blessing. You can still tune in and hear your favorite personality talk about your president while also sparing you the misery of seeing his face up close.

1. Its the people house, not the president's.

2. These outfits were banned because of content Trump disagrees with.

I expect a judge to rule POTUS is violating the 1st amendment of the Constitution because he is.

The Supreme Court rules Trump tariffs illegal and Trump is still charging tariffs.

1. Its the people house, not the president's.

If you really believe that, take a stroll inside and see how far you get. While you are at it, say you are a new resident. Cause it's the people's house and not the president's home. Tell us how it worked out.

It is the people's house. The National Parks Service manages it. Trump, like all presidents, is a temporary resident. You can say it is his residence, you can not intimate he owns it.

If you want to argue semantics, at least learn the difference between ownership and a security perimeter.

The courts did not rule after the hearing. But the verdict is expected soon on Trump banning media from White House.

I'm not arguing semantics; I am arguing reality. “The people’s house” is ceremonial language, not a press-pass entitlement. Go tell your president "this is the people's home, not the president's home." Tell us how it goes.

The people’s house” is ceremonial language, not a press-pass entitlement.

This is a red herring.

Do you deny Trump banned these media organizations because of stories they have published?

Trump openly said he did not like what they said and banned them. Now he is claiming he banned them for sharing security details. The Jude has yet to rule on it.

Shoresy wrote:

What are you expecting a judge to rule? That every person in the country has access to your president's house at any time?

Sherrill v. Knight (D.C. Circuit, 1977) is the closest case I pulled up, the judge never ordered access, and Sherrill never got access after the case was won.

Oh c'mon, you can come up with plenty of precedents that are more relevant, here's a few:

Adolf Hitler: Suppressed the Free Press in Germany from 1933 to 1945.imposing total state control over all newspapers, radio, and publishing to entirely eradicate independent journalism which he labeled “Lügenpresse” (The Lying Press).

Joseph Stalin: Suppressed the Free Press in the Soviet Union from the mid-1920s until 1953 by executing journalists and enforcing strict ideological conformity through censorship bodies like Glavlit and centralized propaganda media organizations like Pravda.

Benito Mussolini: Suppressed the Free Press in Italy from 1922 to 1943 systematically suppressing freedom of the press through a series of increasingly restrictive laws, direct censorship, and the forced alignment of journalists with the Fascist regime. After silencing independent press, he built a personal state propaganda network.

Francisco Franco (Spain): Imposed absolute censorship on publications, cultural events, and the media from the Spanish Civil War until his death in 1975.

Vladimir Putin (Russia): Imprisoned political rivals, banned independent broadcasting networks, and criminalized independent reporting deemed to be against the regime.

Viktor Orbán (Hungary): Methodically placed a stranglehold on independent journalism to build a dominant state-aligned media universe.

Ferdinand Marcos (Philippines): Shut down independent media outlets upon declaring martial law in 1972, seizing broadcast networks and placing them under the control of his family and political cronies.

Kim Jong Un / Kim family (North Korea): Maintains complete state ownership and strict censorship of all television, radio, and print media, ranking near the absolute bottom of the World Press Freedom Index.

Bashar al-Assad (Syria): Controls state media and systematically targets, detains, or kills independent journalists reporting negatively on regime activities.

"If you want to preserve democracy as we know it, you have to have a free and many times adversarial press. And without it, I am afraid that we would lose so much of our individual liberties over time. That's how dictators get started, they get started by suppressing free press." John McCain - US Senator

Think of this as a blessing. You can still tune in and hear your favorite personality talk about your president while also sparing you the misery of seeing his face up close.

This is a red herring.

I agree that using "people's house" rhetoric doesn't grant constitutional access to the president's home.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me what does.

Shoresy wrote:

This is a red herring.

I agree that using "people's house" rhetoric doesn't grant constitutional access to the president's home.

It's not rhetoric, it's a fact, it's not the "President's home", it doesn't belong to him, it belongs to the people, we only let him live there.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me what does.

The Constitution does and the Presidential oath of office does.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Do you deny Trump banned these media organizations because of stories they have published?

Trump and some percentage of MAGA is sick in the head. Simple.

Or as the man who stole McDonalds from the McDonalds movie is quoted as saying...its not a dog eat dog world out there, its a rat eats rat world out there....

So he was on the road salesman of the milkshake holder stirrers etc. In movie the brothers ask him when did know you wanted our business, and he states ....the first time I saw the arches....

The King Trump wants golden arches with his name on them any and everywhere. MAGA apparrently love war starting republicans and Kings.

Kings like Trump like aspire to be a dictator like the ones attacking Ukraine.

AI...' The Invasion: On November 30, 1939, the Soviet Union launched an unprovoked military invasion of Finland after Helsinki rejected demands to cede strategic border territories and lease military bases...

.....The Land Cession: Finland signed the Treaty of Moscow on March 12, 1940, forcing the country to surrender about 11% of its territory (roughly 40,000 square kilometers), including the Karelian Isthmus and the city of Viipuri ''...

King Trump will do all he can to aquire Greenland from Denmark, and of course he has no moral integrity about how it gets it.

Welcome to 2026 Earth. ....Eats a dictator rat world eating all who get in their way...

Shoresy wrote:

Think of this as a blessing. You can still tune in and hear your favorite personality talk about your president while also sparing you the misery of seeing his face up close.

Oh yeah, good point, dictators never want you to see thier face, especially Mr. Modesty, Donald Trump

.

Do you deny Trump banned these media organizations because of stories they have published?

Of course he did, but it's constitutional. Just like in that case:

Sherrill v. Knight (D.C. Circuit, 1977)

The judge never ordered access, and Sherrill never got access after the case was won.

Do you think a judge can compel a US President and force him to share his personal space with all 340 million people? How would that be constitutional?

It's an honest question: if banning reporters from his home is unconstitutional, what is the remedy?

If Trump wants privacy, reporters should be banned from the White House when he is with Melania. But Melania is seldom in the White House with Trump so his claim is invalidated.

What do you think about this?

I think it is yet anther hilarious example of how the political right couldn't care less about the principals they pretend to embrace as foundational to their indefensible support for Trump.

For years now that's all we heard, free speech, free speech, free speech. Then these morons watch as Trump constantly uses his presidential bullhorn to attack journalists, deports people for writing negative stories about him, bans lawfirms from government buildings for representing clients who opposed him, sicks the FEC on any outlet producing content he doesn't like, and now tries to ban entire media outlets *explicitly* because he doesn't like they're coverage of him... And they have nothing to say.

But tell me more about how Biden complained to Twitter about people spreading lies about a pandemic that was literally killing people by the millions.

What's absolutely clear is that these idiots do not understand the most basic reason the first amendment was... the first amendment. It wasn't because the framers were worried about people's rights to be assholes on social media. It was literally because they feared exactly what Trump is trying to do.

Do you think a judge can compel a US President and force him to share his personal space with all 340 million people?

This has absolutely nothing to do with what is at issue.

The press gets access to the white house. Not his bedroom, to the room that they literally built for the press.

The president does not get to decide who gets access to the press room, especially when it's because of coverage he doesn't like, which he has explicitly admitted was his reason for doing so.

Do you understand the first thing about the first amendment?

That's rhetorical. There is no way you could have made the silly arguments you've made in this thread if you did.

Double_R wrote:

What do you think about this?

I think it is yet anther hilarious example of how the political right couldn't care less about the principals they pretend to embrace as foundational to their indefensible support for Trump.

For years now that's all we heard, free speech, free speech, free speech. Then these morons watch as Trump constantly uses his presidential bullhorn to attack journalists, deports people for writing negative stories about him, bans lawfirms from government buildings for representing clients who opposed him, sicks the FEC on any outlet producing content he doesn't like, and now tries to ban entire media outlets *explicitly* because he doesn't like they're coverage of him... And they have nothing to say.

But tell me more about how Biden complained to Twitter about people spreading lies about a pandemic that was literally killing people by the millions.

What's absolutely clear is that these idiots do not understand the most basic reason the first amendment was... the first amendment. It wasn't because the framers were worried about people's rights to be assholes on social media. It was literally because they feared exactly what Trump is trying to do.

That's why I started this thread, we had posters here screeching Free Speech about the moderators doing their job in a place where free speech doesn't apply, and about things that are not protected speech anyway, this was pointed out and they didn't miss a beat screaming free speech, free speech ad nauseum.

Then Trump takes a huge crap on the 1st amendment, like you said, this is specifically why we mandate free speech, and its crickets from our free speech crowd, and its crickets from our congressional majority, you know, the people who took an oath swearing to defend the constitution.

I always try to get the Trumpers to step up in defense of their cult hero, but nope, all they know or care about is hating the opposition.

This is one of the most damaging, and unconstitutional thing to happen in decades, and the people who need to care, couldn't give a crap less.

What's really going to destroy this country is apathy.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" - Edmund Burke

Of course he did, but it's constitutional.

Your position is that banning some, not all, media outlets access is constitutional?

Sherrill v. Knight (D.C. Circuit, 1977)

The judge never ordered access, and Sherrill never got access after the case was won.

This case was about the denial of due process (not the restoration of credentials), and Sherrill won the case. This precedent directly goes against Trump's actions.

To be clear, Sherrill was an individual reporter applying for credentials who was denied. This is not comparable to entire media outlets having their credentials abruptly revoked after already successfully passing the vetting process.

Do you think a judge can compel a US President and force him to share his personal space with all 340 million people?

It is not about 340 million people. It is about 3 media outlets being banned from the White House press pool without due process on an unconstitutional rationalization.

It's an honest question:if banning reporters from his home is unconstitutional, what is the remedy?

"Home" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. The White House has many functions - it’s an executive workspace, a communications hub, a historic site, and a private residence.

More to the point, press briefings don't happen in the living quarters; they take place in a dedicated, specialized briefing room. It’s misleading to frame the ban as some type of 'intrusion into the president's private home' - he doesn't live in the press room.