And Trump is doing so in a way that Trump, personally, already was informed was illegal and unconstitutional. In 2019, the Second Circuit in Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University v. Trump already proved this particular principle to Trump, personally.
CNN and MSNBC unashamedly belong to the propaganda branch of the Democratic Party. They’re neither “independent” nor “news” channels although they masquerade as both.
It’s legitimate to exclude hostile propagandists from White House press briefings. Witness Jim Acosta’s flagrant disrespect towards the office of President. His promotion after frequent displays of contempt is demonstrable proof that his CNN masters approved of his conduct.
The country knew what was up. Both channels viewership ratings cratered.
SCOTUS has long since established the falsity of your second sentence. In 1995 in Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the University of Virginia, SCOTUS emphasized that any purported public servant who “targets” any “particular views” necessarily commits a particularly “blatant” and “egregious” form of “violation of the First Amendment.”
"[Our public servants have no power to impose any] burdens on certain speakers based on the content of their expression. When the government targets not [merely] subject matter, but particular views taken by speakers on a subject, the violation of the First Amendment is all the more blatant. Viewpoint discrimination is thus an egregious form of content discrimination. The government must abstain from regulating speech when the specific motivating ideology or the opinion or perspective of the speaker is the rationale for the restriction."
In Christian Legal Soc’y Chapter of the Univ. of Cal., Hastings Coll. of L. v. Martinez in 2010 SCOTUS re-emphasized that “a defining characteristic of limited public forums” is that access is limited. Of course, the government may reserve access to a particular forum to “certain groups” and even for specified uses. Even so, our public servants may do so only to serve a public purpose. As SCOTUS re-emphasized, “Any access barrier must be [both] reasonable and viewpoint neutral.”
Fortunately for us, nobody who matters agrees with your second sentence.
The First Amendment secures our right to hear as much as a journalist's right to speak. This is an instance in which the SCOTUS majority's opinion in Citizens United in 2010 might do some good. "When Government seeks to use" official "power" to "command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves." "The censorship we now confront" has "muffle[d some of] the voices that best represent the most significant segments of the economy."
More important, "the electorate [has been] deprived of information, knowledge and opinion vital to its function." “The right of citizens to inquire, to hear, to speak, and to use information” is essential “to enlightened self-government” (self-government implies sovereignty) and it is “a necessary means to protect it” (our self-government and our sovereignty). Thinking and speaking about government is the primary purpose and duty of government. It also is the primary power and duty of sovereignty.
The first principle here is that “the people are sovereign” in our “republic.” Our powers as sovereigns necessarily include “the ability of the citizenry to make informed choices” about many public servants and public issues. That “ability” is “essential” to the operation of our Constitution. “Speech” (and hearing speech) “is an essential mechanism of democracy” as a “means to hold officials accountable to the people.”
“Political speech” is “indispensable to decisionmaking in a democracy” by citizens who are sovereign. “The Constitution” clearly “confers upon voters” (as sovereigns) the “power to choose” (directly or indirectly) some of our public servants. “Discussion of public issues and debate on the qualifications of” current or potential public servants “are integral to the operation of the system of government established by our Constitution.”
“In the realm of protected speech,” government “is constitutionally disqualified from dictating the subjects about which persons may speak and the speakers who may address a public issue.” “Political speech” is “indispensable to decisionmaking in a democracy, and this” is “true” regardless of whether “the speech comes from a corporation” or “an individual.”
“Premised on mistrust of governmental power, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints.” “Prohibited, too, are restrictions distinguishing among different speakers, allowing speech by some but not others.” “As instruments to censor, these categories are interrelated: Speech restrictions based on the identity of the speaker are all too often simply a means to control content.” “The First Amendment protects speech and speaker, and the ideas that flow from each.” So “the First Amendment generally prohibits the suppression of political speech based on the speaker’s identity.”
“[T]he worth of speech” cannot “depend upon the identity of its source.” “Government cannot restrict political speech based on the speaker’s corporate identity” or individual identity. “[T]he First Amendment does not allow political speech restrictions based on a speaker’s corporate identity” or individual identity.
Our sovereignty means that “political speech” (and the ability to hear political speech) “must prevail against laws that would suppress it, whether by design or inadvertence. Laws that burden political speech" (and the ability to hear political speech) "are ‘subject to strict scrutiny,’ which requires the Government to prove” two important points: first, that “the restriction” actually does support a legitimate “interest” that is “compelling,” and, second, that “the restriction” is “narrowly tailored to achieve that [compelling] interest.” That is a burden of proof that Trump cannot bear.
"The government cannot make press access a reward for favorable coverage...."
Press access is a privilege, not a right. It's given by grace. This statement is arrant bullshit and should have been copyedited by adults. It's equivalent to an angry teenager being told he can't have the car keys because he got caught cheating on a test in school. To the degree that so-called news outlets distort reality in their reportage, they needn't be accorded the privilege of being around newspaper adults who don't--at least within the White House.
What does it mean, exactly, when you assert that "Press access is a privilege, not a right"? What's the difference, in your mind? What exactly establishes that a "privilege" is "given by grace"? By whose grace is a privilege given? In what way, exactly, is a privilege given by grace in which a right is not?
Fair question. Nowhere in the Constitution or other body of laws is the press granted access to the White House. The fact that a press office and briefing room were established and maintained is a matter of tradition, not law. It’s a small room. And it’s a privilege to be allowed in that room during press briefings. Ultimately the president decides who receives and who doesn’t receive that privilege. But to argue that it’s ~illegal~ for someone or some organization to be excluded because the president deems their reportage to be unfair or consistently inaccurate is foolishness. He’s essentially firing them for reporting fake news.
If you hired someone to write press releases for you and you told them what to write, would you be happy paying them for writing whatever came into their heads—if it was different from what you said? How about if they accurately reported what you said and then wrote that you were an idiot because of it? Would you be inclined to let them continue writing for you? I would not, and I suspect most people wouldn’t either.
Reporters don’t nominally get paid by the government or by Trump personally, but they are allowed—or not—to get the first bites at the news apple. Why would a reasonable person invite in, or even tolerate--people who constantly denigrate them? Kinda self-defeating to do that. Better to let them read it in someone else’s paper and then comment on that.
Joe, my questions, above, regarding your assertion about something being "a privilege, not a right" are prompted by the plain text and plain meaning of our Constitution. In four instances, our Constitution uses the word "privilege."
Article I:
"The Senators and Representatives . . . shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."
"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
Article IV:
"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."
Amendment XIV:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States . . . are citizens of the United States" and "No State" has any power to purport to either "make or enforce any law" that would "abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." Such privileges and immunities clearly include the right not to be "deprive[d]" of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" and "the equal protection of the laws."
So what legal authority would cause anyone to conclude that a right that is enumerated in our Constitution is not included within the privileges and immunities of citizens?
Joe, arguing that "Nowhere in the Constitution or other body of laws is the press granted access to the White House" is a red herring. Trump granted access, and he did so to facilitate public access to information that he chose to release to the public about public matters. Those are the dispositive facts.
Our Constitution does expressly say that Trump cannot deny access based a factor that violates our Constitution (i.e., the opinions or viewpoint of a journalist). Since 1791, our Constitution (the Fifth Amendment) has expressly emphasized that "No person" may be "deprived" by any federal employee of any "liberty" or "property" before being afforded all "process of law" that is "due."
SCOTUS has emphasized repeatedly that nothing in our Constitution permits (and the First and Fourteenth Amendments necessarily preclude) any of our public servants discriminating or retaliating against any person for any mere viewpoint.
Joe, I appreciate your responding, but you didn't answer any of my questions.
Trump isn't firing anyone, and nothing gave him any power to fire anyone at issue here. Do you think something gave the president the power to fire journalists? If so, what?
Your thinking is contrary to clear SCOTUS precedent addressing relevant principles. It's irrelevant that access to "a small room" is at issue. What legal authority established that "Ultimately the president decides who receives and who doesn’t receive that privilege" of access to the Oval Office?
In Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan (2011), SCOTUS addressed dispositive principles. Trump's communications with the public from the White House are "not personal to" him; each such communication "belongs to the people;" Trump "has no personal right to it." All such public communications "pertain to" presidents "not as individuals but as political representatives executing" official functions.
In Trump v. United States, SCOTUS also addressed the same principle. Presidents have absolute immunity for speech that fulfills a "core constitutional" duty and they might have some immunity for communications by which the president performs an "official" function. Would you agree that communications to the public from the White House on matters of public concern are official?
In 2019, the Second Circuit already instructed Trump, personally, that he cannot block access to a means of communication that he uses to communicate with the public. SCOTUS left that in place until Trump left office.
After that, in 2024, SCOTUS (unanimously) precluded blocking comments on a public official's means of communication with the public.
Presidents make the Oval Office a limited public forum when they invite members of the press (and even members of the public) into it for purposes of communicating with the public. This principle was addressed by the People in our Constitution.
In Article III, the People declared courts "public" for purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution. No court has any power to exclude any person (including any journalist) because of their mere opinion or viewpoint.
We can agree to disagree on this. I specifically allowed that Trump didn't hire anyone in the press room and wrote around that concession. You didn't seem to notice that point. I'm through here. We'll see where this goes, and whether it makes it to SCOTUS. I'm hoping it will so things will be definitively sorted out going forward.
Bollox. He’s clearing out the corporate liars & TDS sufferers
And Trump is doing so in a way that Trump, personally, already was informed was illegal and unconstitutional. In 2019, the Second Circuit in Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University v. Trump already proved this particular principle to Trump, personally.
CNN and MSNBC unashamedly belong to the propaganda branch of the Democratic Party. They’re neither “independent” nor “news” channels although they masquerade as both.
It’s legitimate to exclude hostile propagandists from White House press briefings. Witness Jim Acosta’s flagrant disrespect towards the office of President. His promotion after frequent displays of contempt is demonstrable proof that his CNN masters approved of his conduct.
The country knew what was up. Both channels viewership ratings cratered.
SCOTUS has long since established the falsity of your second sentence. In 1995 in Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the University of Virginia, SCOTUS emphasized that any purported public servant who “targets” any “particular views” necessarily commits a particularly “blatant” and “egregious” form of “violation of the First Amendment.”
"[Our public servants have no power to impose any] burdens on certain speakers based on the content of their expression. When the government targets not [merely] subject matter, but particular views taken by speakers on a subject, the violation of the First Amendment is all the more blatant. Viewpoint discrimination is thus an egregious form of content discrimination. The government must abstain from regulating speech when the specific motivating ideology or the opinion or perspective of the speaker is the rationale for the restriction."
In Christian Legal Soc’y Chapter of the Univ. of Cal., Hastings Coll. of L. v. Martinez in 2010 SCOTUS re-emphasized that “a defining characteristic of limited public forums” is that access is limited. Of course, the government may reserve access to a particular forum to “certain groups” and even for specified uses. Even so, our public servants may do so only to serve a public purpose. As SCOTUS re-emphasized, “Any access barrier must be [both] reasonable and viewpoint neutral.”
Fortunately for us, nobody who matters agrees with your second sentence.
The First Amendment secures our right to hear as much as a journalist's right to speak. This is an instance in which the SCOTUS majority's opinion in Citizens United in 2010 might do some good. "When Government seeks to use" official "power" to "command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves." "The censorship we now confront" has "muffle[d some of] the voices that best represent the most significant segments of the economy."
More important, "the electorate [has been] deprived of information, knowledge and opinion vital to its function." “The right of citizens to inquire, to hear, to speak, and to use information” is essential “to enlightened self-government” (self-government implies sovereignty) and it is “a necessary means to protect it” (our self-government and our sovereignty). Thinking and speaking about government is the primary purpose and duty of government. It also is the primary power and duty of sovereignty.
The first principle here is that “the people are sovereign” in our “republic.” Our powers as sovereigns necessarily include “the ability of the citizenry to make informed choices” about many public servants and public issues. That “ability” is “essential” to the operation of our Constitution. “Speech” (and hearing speech) “is an essential mechanism of democracy” as a “means to hold officials accountable to the people.”
“Political speech” is “indispensable to decisionmaking in a democracy” by citizens who are sovereign. “The Constitution” clearly “confers upon voters” (as sovereigns) the “power to choose” (directly or indirectly) some of our public servants. “Discussion of public issues and debate on the qualifications of” current or potential public servants “are integral to the operation of the system of government established by our Constitution.”
“In the realm of protected speech,” government “is constitutionally disqualified from dictating the subjects about which persons may speak and the speakers who may address a public issue.” “Political speech” is “indispensable to decisionmaking in a democracy, and this” is “true” regardless of whether “the speech comes from a corporation” or “an individual.”
“Premised on mistrust of governmental power, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints.” “Prohibited, too, are restrictions distinguishing among different speakers, allowing speech by some but not others.” “As instruments to censor, these categories are interrelated: Speech restrictions based on the identity of the speaker are all too often simply a means to control content.” “The First Amendment protects speech and speaker, and the ideas that flow from each.” So “the First Amendment generally prohibits the suppression of political speech based on the speaker’s identity.”
“[T]he worth of speech” cannot “depend upon the identity of its source.” “Government cannot restrict political speech based on the speaker’s corporate identity” or individual identity. “[T]he First Amendment does not allow political speech restrictions based on a speaker’s corporate identity” or individual identity.
Our sovereignty means that “political speech” (and the ability to hear political speech) “must prevail against laws that would suppress it, whether by design or inadvertence. Laws that burden political speech" (and the ability to hear political speech) "are ‘subject to strict scrutiny,’ which requires the Government to prove” two important points: first, that “the restriction” actually does support a legitimate “interest” that is “compelling,” and, second, that “the restriction” is “narrowly tailored to achieve that [compelling] interest.” That is a burden of proof that Trump cannot bear.
I see the ideologues found this post.
"The government cannot make press access a reward for favorable coverage...."
Press access is a privilege, not a right. It's given by grace. This statement is arrant bullshit and should have been copyedited by adults. It's equivalent to an angry teenager being told he can't have the car keys because he got caught cheating on a test in school. To the degree that so-called news outlets distort reality in their reportage, they needn't be accorded the privilege of being around newspaper adults who don't--at least within the White House.
What does it mean, exactly, when you assert that "Press access is a privilege, not a right"? What's the difference, in your mind? What exactly establishes that a "privilege" is "given by grace"? By whose grace is a privilege given? In what way, exactly, is a privilege given by grace in which a right is not?
Fair question. Nowhere in the Constitution or other body of laws is the press granted access to the White House. The fact that a press office and briefing room were established and maintained is a matter of tradition, not law. It’s a small room. And it’s a privilege to be allowed in that room during press briefings. Ultimately the president decides who receives and who doesn’t receive that privilege. But to argue that it’s ~illegal~ for someone or some organization to be excluded because the president deems their reportage to be unfair or consistently inaccurate is foolishness. He’s essentially firing them for reporting fake news.
If you hired someone to write press releases for you and you told them what to write, would you be happy paying them for writing whatever came into their heads—if it was different from what you said? How about if they accurately reported what you said and then wrote that you were an idiot because of it? Would you be inclined to let them continue writing for you? I would not, and I suspect most people wouldn’t either.
Reporters don’t nominally get paid by the government or by Trump personally, but they are allowed—or not—to get the first bites at the news apple. Why would a reasonable person invite in, or even tolerate--people who constantly denigrate them? Kinda self-defeating to do that. Better to let them read it in someone else’s paper and then comment on that.
Joe, my questions, above, regarding your assertion about something being "a privilege, not a right" are prompted by the plain text and plain meaning of our Constitution. In four instances, our Constitution uses the word "privilege."
Article I:
"The Senators and Representatives . . . shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."
"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
Article IV:
"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."
Amendment XIV:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States . . . are citizens of the United States" and "No State" has any power to purport to either "make or enforce any law" that would "abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." Such privileges and immunities clearly include the right not to be "deprive[d]" of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" and "the equal protection of the laws."
So what legal authority would cause anyone to conclude that a right that is enumerated in our Constitution is not included within the privileges and immunities of citizens?
Joe, arguing that "Nowhere in the Constitution or other body of laws is the press granted access to the White House" is a red herring. Trump granted access, and he did so to facilitate public access to information that he chose to release to the public about public matters. Those are the dispositive facts.
Our Constitution does expressly say that Trump cannot deny access based a factor that violates our Constitution (i.e., the opinions or viewpoint of a journalist). Since 1791, our Constitution (the Fifth Amendment) has expressly emphasized that "No person" may be "deprived" by any federal employee of any "liberty" or "property" before being afforded all "process of law" that is "due."
SCOTUS has emphasized repeatedly that nothing in our Constitution permits (and the First and Fourteenth Amendments necessarily preclude) any of our public servants discriminating or retaliating against any person for any mere viewpoint.
Joe, I appreciate your responding, but you didn't answer any of my questions.
Trump isn't firing anyone, and nothing gave him any power to fire anyone at issue here. Do you think something gave the president the power to fire journalists? If so, what?
Your thinking is contrary to clear SCOTUS precedent addressing relevant principles. It's irrelevant that access to "a small room" is at issue. What legal authority established that "Ultimately the president decides who receives and who doesn’t receive that privilege" of access to the Oval Office?
In Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan (2011), SCOTUS addressed dispositive principles. Trump's communications with the public from the White House are "not personal to" him; each such communication "belongs to the people;" Trump "has no personal right to it." All such public communications "pertain to" presidents "not as individuals but as political representatives executing" official functions.
In Trump v. United States, SCOTUS also addressed the same principle. Presidents have absolute immunity for speech that fulfills a "core constitutional" duty and they might have some immunity for communications by which the president performs an "official" function. Would you agree that communications to the public from the White House on matters of public concern are official?
In 2019, the Second Circuit already instructed Trump, personally, that he cannot block access to a means of communication that he uses to communicate with the public. SCOTUS left that in place until Trump left office.
After that, in 2024, SCOTUS (unanimously) precluded blocking comments on a public official's means of communication with the public.
See https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-supreme-court-and-social-media-can-government-officials-block-online-comments
Presidents make the Oval Office a limited public forum when they invite members of the press (and even members of the public) into it for purposes of communicating with the public. This principle was addressed by the People in our Constitution.
In Article III, the People declared courts "public" for purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution. No court has any power to exclude any person (including any journalist) because of their mere opinion or viewpoint.
We can agree to disagree on this. I specifically allowed that Trump didn't hire anyone in the press room and wrote around that concession. You didn't seem to notice that point. I'm through here. We'll see where this goes, and whether it makes it to SCOTUS. I'm hoping it will so things will be definitively sorted out going forward.