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.
Bollox. He’s clearing out the corporate liars & TDS sufferers
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.