Trump - First Amendment?

Shoresy wrote:

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

Then why did a Trump appointed Federal Judge rule it unconstitutional and order him to lift the ban and allow all three news agencies access?

You never answered what the remedy is.

And you've not acknowledged your framing is disingenuous.

Shoresy wrote:

You never answered what the remedy is.

The remedy already happened today, a federal judge rules that Trump broke the law, again.

Access is restored.

There's no disingenuous way to frame an issue of a constitutional right to a speech venue. No matter where that venue is.

It either exists or it does not.

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

It depends on whether access is constitutional.

There's no disingenuous way to frame an issue of a constitutional right to a speech venue.

Maybe its just me, but conflating the press room at the White house as the 'presidents home' seems a smidge disingenuous.

There's no disingenuous way to frame an issue of a constitutional right to a speech venue.

No matter where that venue is.

Cutting off that last part might not be disingenuous... but it does leave out an important bit.

And it still is an either-or condition. Does it, or does it not exist?

The Judge ruled against Trump and forced him to lift the ban by 2.30pm. The press cards were reissued after Trump found the Chinese press much friendlier. China now leads in etiquette.

Debby wrote:

The Judge ruled against Trump and forced him to lift the ban by 2.30pm. The press cards were reissued after Trump found the Chinese press much friendlier. China now leads in etiquette.

Trump is the best thing that ever happened to China.

Trump is the best thing that ever happened to China.

That would have been nice to hear from your press at the White House... if the opinion reporters were allowed to get near Xi.

Shoresy wrote:

Trump is the best thing that ever happened to China.

That would have been nice to hear from your press at the White House... if the opinion reporters were allowed to get near Xi.

The White House doesn't believe in Free Speech, Trump and Xi are allies when it comes to suppressing the press.

Trump is also the best thing that ever happened to the Democratic Party.

Trump is also the best thing that ever happened to the corruption business

Trump is also the best thing that ever happened to the Pedophile industry.

Trump is also the best thing that ever happened to Authoritarianism.

Problem is Trump is also the worst thing that ever happened to the US and it's allies (well, former allies now)

And it still is an either-or condition. Does it, or does it not exist?

What is "it" meant to be in that sentence? The Constitution?

Before you attempt to defend whatever it is you're arguing, let us keep in mind the media outlets in question now have their credentials (temporarily) restored with the judge noting the administration likely trampled due process.

What is "it" meant to be in that sentence? The Constitution?

post #35

Before you attempt to defend whatever it is you're arguing, let us keep in mind the media outlets in question now have their credentials (temporarily) restored with the judge noting the administration likely trampled due process.

As in Sherrill where there was a due process issue, yet no access was ultimately granted to Sherrill on any Constitutional ground. Has anything changed since that case?

Shoresy wrote:

What is "it" meant to be in that sentence? The Constitution?

post #35

I am asking for clarification. Do you want to be understood?

As in Sherrill where there was a due process issue, yet no access was ultimately granted to Sherrill on any Constitutional ground. Has anything changed since that case?

This was covered in post #30. Sherrill did not have credentials removed. The only similarity between that case and this is that the administration bypassed due process.

I am asking for clarification. Do you want to be understood?

As I said in post 35:

A constitutional right to a speech venue. No matter where that venue is.

The Constitutional Right to a speech venue either exists or it does not.

Which is it?

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

It depends on whether access is a constitutional right.

In Canada, the PM controls all access to all his events, and even though the CBC is government-funded news, it still doesn't have blanket access.

Even though the CBC is publicly funded, but its editorial content operates independently by law, free from direct government or prime ministerial interference.

The Constitutional Right to a speech venue either exists or it does not.

Who has argued for a 'Constitutional right to a speech venue'? Whether there is such a right (there isnt) is not what this dispute is over. The issue is the potential quashing of freedom of the press and due process (which are enumerated rights) by the US Government. Those rights are not contingent on some imaginary right to access government briefings.

So it's your position that denying access to the press is equivalent to quashing (or potentially quashing) the press?

My position is that revoking credentials in retaliation for releasing unflattering stories is an infringement of the Freedom of the Press of First Amendment, and removing credentials without notice or a chance to respond runs against Due Process of the 5th Amendment.

Credentials for....access.....

So the answer is yes to my question.

Well, at least Trump proved that H L Mencken was a genius.