CNN, MSNOW and Politico banned from White House (Page 5 of 8)
|
Originally Posted By 6SJ7GT: The court blocks this then the press conferences go to Cspan video conferences. everyone gets equal access that way. Originally Posted By 6SJ7GT: Originally Posted By RCK1999: Until this administration, the press pool schedule was a managed by the WHCA. Like many here, you don’t have a clue about the constitutional implications of this foolish move. Trumph knows well and good that what he did here is not constitutional, and won’t hold up in court. He simply doesn’t care. His goal with this move on a Friday afternoon was to change and control the news cycle. He was successful in that goal. The court blocks this then the press conferences go to Cspan video conferences. everyone gets equal access that way. I suppose that’s a possibility. I’m sure the current press secretary could work it out. 🤪🤪🤪 ETA: trumph could also demolish the WH press briefing room stating that it’s old, decrepit and in need of a total gold-tone renovation. It would then become the trumph press room, with all seats being gold commodes. |
A ban for thee but not for me.
|
|
Originally Posted By Advance: A ban for thee but not for me.
Whataboutism! See Biden and Trump are the same.  potato v2 |
|
Originally Posted By atavistic: If I should go to the WH and demand access to cover things, I'm not getting in. All these freedom of the press judges need to open up their chambers - we have a right to know! They regularly ban or gag press in and out of their courtroom. |
Act Accordingly…
|
Originally Posted By Morlawn66: This Remember it all . They were all in . Propaganda arm of the DNC . Originally Posted By Morlawn66: Originally Posted By LightSwitch: Exactly. The 4 years of the "Russia Hoax" bullshit, the Rittenhouse reporting, the lies about "Very fine people", the Covington Catholic highschool student they tried to ruin his life, the covid censorship on their platforms, the bullshit cases against Trump, the absolute farce of January 6 coverage, banning a sitting US President off of social media, the lies and coverup of Hunter Biden's laptop, "fiery but mostly peaceful" riots in 2020, the gaslighting around Biden's mental condition and total acceptance of Biden having cheat sheets with journalist names, questions and answers already on a card, never heckling Biden like they do to Trump. So yeah, they can fuck right off and still use their first amendment rights to peddle their bullshit .just not from the front row of the whitehouse briefing room. This Remember it all . They were all in . Propaganda arm of the DNC . |
Act Accordingly…
Good move, Mr. President!  I believe those DNC sock puppets about as much as I believe Russia Today. |
"...Capitalism...shares its blessings unequally; ...Socialism...shares its miseries equally."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
|
I am looking for the part in the US Constitution that says CNN, MSNOW, and Politico have the right to be inside the White House. I am not finding it. Can one of you who keep saying this is unconstitutional please point me at the Article and or amendment please? I would really appreciate it. |
C co 2/325th AIR 91-96 11B1P
Father of 6 un-socialized homeschoolers and grandfather to 2 awesome little boys and the most beautiful granddaughter in the world.
Father of 6 un-socialized homeschoolers and grandfather to 2 awesome little boys and the most beautiful granddaughter in the world.
|
Originally Posted By ApacheScout: You weren't this vocal about Biden being a potato. Originally Posted By ApacheScout: Originally Posted By Ulster: Whataboutism! See Biden and Trump are the same. potato v2 You must be confusing me with someone else. Did you see my last Biden thread? |
|
Originally Posted By garyd: I am looking for the part in the US Constitution that says CNN, MSNOW, and Politico have the right to be inside the White House. I am not finding it. Can one of you who keep saying this is unconstitutional please point me at the Article and or amendment please? I would really appreciate it. Then read about the various court cases that say the White House can't deny press access because of a viewpoint. Start with Sherrill v Knight, which has already been posted. You're wasting your time trying to find in the U.S. Constitution where they talk about CNN, MSNOW and Politico specifically. |
|
Originally Posted By Never_A_Wick: He cant rebut your point so he attacks you. Simple sign of you being correct. Originally Posted By Never_A_Wick: Originally Posted By Thrasymachus:  How so? He cant rebut your point so he attacks you. Simple sign of you being correct. Ad hominems are always the most entertaining. |
|
Originally Posted By Master_Shake: You should probably first read up on the role of the Judicial Branch in our system of government. Then read about the various court cases that say the White House can't deny press access because of a viewpoint. Start with Sherrill v Knight, which has already been posted. You're wasting your time trying to find in the U.S. Constitution where they talk about CNN, MSNOW and Politico specifically. Listen I realize that you think you're better than everybody else and I really don't care. But I'm asking a specific question because people like you were claiming that it's unconstitutional and I'm simply asking a very simple straightforward question, where exactly in the constitution does it say that any news organization has the right to be inside the White House? I'm not asking whether you agree with his decision I'm not asking if you think his decisions the right decision. I have my own opinions on that subject. I'm asking for someone who claims it's unconstitutional to point to me specifically where in the Constitution says any news organization has that right. Because if CNN and MSNBC or whatever can claim that they have a right to be inside the White House. Then any news organization regardless of how small can make that same claim, and we all know that's not true. I asked a very specific question. You basically just told me it doesn't exist yet I'm still wrong. Okay so show it to me in the constitution. And since these same news organizations didn't give a rip about my constitutional right to worship God by the dictates of my own heart I'm really not overly concerned that they can't get inside the White House do you know why. Because there's not a thing stopping them from still continuing to print whatever lies they feel like printing. But when I'm threatened with jail because I want to go to church. It's a problem. But obviously you only considered a problem one way. thank you and have a good day. |
C co 2/325th AIR 91-96 11B1P
Father of 6 un-socialized homeschoolers and grandfather to 2 awesome little boys and the most beautiful granddaughter in the world.
Father of 6 un-socialized homeschoolers and grandfather to 2 awesome little boys and the most beautiful granddaughter in the world.
|
Originally Posted By garyd: Listen I realize that you think you're better than everybody else and I really don't care. But I'm asking a specific question because people like you were claiming that it's unconstitutional and I'm simply asking a very simple straightforward question, where exactly in the constitution does it say that any news organization has the right to be inside the White House? I'm not asking whether you agree with his decision I'm not asking if you think his decisions the right decision. I have my own opinions on that subject. I'm asking for someone who claims it's unconstitutional to point to me specifically where in the Constitution says any news organization has that right. Because if CNN and MSNBC or whatever can claim that they have a right to be inside the White House. Then any news organization regardless of how small can make that same claim, and we all know that's not true. I asked a very specific question. You basically just told me a doesnt exist yet I'm still wrong. Okay so show it to me in the constitution. And since these same news organizations didn't give a rip about my constitutional right to worship God by the dictates of my own heart I'm really not overrly concerned that they can't get inside the White House do you know why. Because there's not a thing stopping them from still continuing to print whatever lies they feel like printing. But when I'm threatened with jail because I want to go to church. It's a problem but obviously you only considered a problem one way thank you have a good day. Originally Posted By garyd: Originally Posted By Master_Shake: You should probably first read up on the role of the Judicial Branch in our system of government. Then read about the various court cases that say the White House can't deny press access because of a viewpoint. Start with Sherrill v Knight, which has already been posted. You're wasting your time trying to find in the U.S. Constitution where they talk about CNN, MSNOW and Politico specifically. Listen I realize that you think you're better than everybody else and I really don't care. But I'm asking a specific question because people like you were claiming that it's unconstitutional and I'm simply asking a very simple straightforward question, where exactly in the constitution does it say that any news organization has the right to be inside the White House? I'm not asking whether you agree with his decision I'm not asking if you think his decisions the right decision. I have my own opinions on that subject. I'm asking for someone who claims it's unconstitutional to point to me specifically where in the Constitution says any news organization has that right. Because if CNN and MSNBC or whatever can claim that they have a right to be inside the White House. Then any news organization regardless of how small can make that same claim, and we all know that's not true. I asked a very specific question. You basically just told me a doesnt exist yet I'm still wrong. Okay so show it to me in the constitution. And since these same news organizations didn't give a rip about my constitutional right to worship God by the dictates of my own heart I'm really not overrly concerned that they can't get inside the White House do you know why. Because there's not a thing stopping them from still continuing to print whatever lies they feel like printing. But when I'm threatened with jail because I want to go to church. It's a problem but obviously you only considered a problem one way thank you have a good day. Obviously, as has already been stated, the constitution does not specifically address news organization's access to the White House press activities. What is being referenced is the fact that many similar cases have been brought, and courts have ruled that the government can not restrict or discriminate against news organizations based on their editorial views. There is legal precedent that refers to the 1st Amendment concept of freedom of the press that will be used when this case hits the courts. |
Joined:
Dec 2022
Posts:
8300
EE: 0% (0)
USA
|
Originally Posted By Advance: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/309598/2026-09-18_17-19-20_jpg-3829298.JPG  Attached File |
|
Originally Posted By OutThere: I am not a fan of this. Comes across as being very thin skinned. What I would do is remove most of the seats in the press room, leaving about 15. Then before every press conference, randomly generate the press outlets who will be granted admission. It's fair and avoids the cherry-picking. A lottery. Give 4-5 permanent status. Let the rest go to the pit. |
Brought back from the beyond to be a half-dead short-bus riding seat warmer in the Dracula factory.
Esteemed grain-grower & reactionary defender of True Justice, in a death struggle with the Karen quo.
*Do not Karen-tinize the Eschaton!!!*
Esteemed grain-grower & reactionary defender of True Justice, in a death struggle with the Karen quo.
*Do not Karen-tinize the Eschaton!!!*
|
Originally Posted By garyd: Listen I realize that you think you're better than everybody else and I really don't care. But I'm asking a specific question because people like you were claiming that it's unconstitutional and I'm simply asking a very simple straightforward question, where exactly in the constitution does it say that any news organization has the right to be inside the White House? I'm not asking whether you agree with his decision I'm not asking if you think his decisions the right decision. I have my own opinions on that subject. I'm asking for someone who claims it's unconstitutional to point to me specifically where in the Constitution says any news organization has that right. Because if CNN and MSNBC or whatever can claim that they have a right to be inside the White House. Then any news organization regardless of how small can make that same claim, and we all know that's not true. I asked a very specific question. You basically just told me a doesnt exist yet I'm still wrong. Okay so show it to me in the constitution. And since these same news organizations didn't give a rip about my constitutional right to worship God by the dictates of my own heart I'm really not overrly concerned that they can't get inside the White House do you know why. Because there's not a thing stopping them from still continuing to print whatever lies they feel like printing. But when I'm threatened with jail because I want to go to church. It's a problem but obviously you only considered a problem one way thank you have a good day. Originally Posted By garyd: Originally Posted By Master_Shake: You should probably first read up on the role of the Judicial Branch in our system of government. Then read about the various court cases that say the White House can't deny press access because of a viewpoint. Start with Sherrill v Knight, which has already been posted. You're wasting your time trying to find in the U.S. Constitution where they talk about CNN, MSNOW and Politico specifically. Listen I realize that you think you're better than everybody else and I really don't care. But I'm asking a specific question because people like you were claiming that it's unconstitutional and I'm simply asking a very simple straightforward question, where exactly in the constitution does it say that any news organization has the right to be inside the White House? I'm not asking whether you agree with his decision I'm not asking if you think his decisions the right decision. I have my own opinions on that subject. I'm asking for someone who claims it's unconstitutional to point to me specifically where in the Constitution says any news organization has that right. Because if CNN and MSNBC or whatever can claim that they have a right to be inside the White House. Then any news organization regardless of how small can make that same claim, and we all know that's not true. I asked a very specific question. You basically just told me a doesnt exist yet I'm still wrong. Okay so show it to me in the constitution. And since these same news organizations didn't give a rip about my constitutional right to worship God by the dictates of my own heart I'm really not overrly concerned that they can't get inside the White House do you know why. Because there's not a thing stopping them from still continuing to print whatever lies they feel like printing. But when I'm threatened with jail because I want to go to church. It's a problem but obviously you only considered a problem one way thank you have a good day. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/569/124/35083/ |
|
Originally Posted By RCK1999: Obviously, as has already been stated, the constitution does not specifically address news organization's access to the White House press activities. What is being referenced is the fact that many similar cases have been brought, and courts have ruled that the government can not restrict or discriminate against news organizations based on their editorial views. There is legal precedent that refers to the 1st Amendment concept of freedom of the press that will be used when this case hits the courts. Originally Posted By RCK1999: Originally Posted By garyd: Originally Posted By Master_Shake: You should probably first read up on the role of the Judicial Branch in our system of government. Then read about the various court cases that say the White House can't deny press access because of a viewpoint. Start with Sherrill v Knight, which has already been posted. You're wasting your time trying to find in the U.S. Constitution where they talk about CNN, MSNOW and Politico specifically. Listen I realize that you think you're better than everybody else and I really don't care. But I'm asking a specific question because people like you were claiming that it's unconstitutional and I'm simply asking a very simple straightforward question, where exactly in the constitution does it say that any news organization has the right to be inside the White House? I'm not asking whether you agree with his decision I'm not asking if you think his decisions the right decision. I have my own opinions on that subject. I'm asking for someone who claims it's unconstitutional to point to me specifically where in the Constitution says any news organization has that right. Because if CNN and MSNBC or whatever can claim that they have a right to be inside the White House. Then any news organization regardless of how small can make that same claim, and we all know that's not true. I asked a very specific question. You basically just told me a doesnt exist yet I'm still wrong. Okay so show it to me in the constitution. And since these same news organizations didn't give a rip about my constitutional right to worship God by the dictates of my own heart I'm really not overrly concerned that they can't get inside the White House do you know why. Because there's not a thing stopping them from still continuing to print whatever lies they feel like printing. But when I'm threatened with jail because I want to go to church. It's a problem but obviously you only considered a problem one way thank you have a good day. Obviously, as has already been stated, the constitution does not specifically address news organization's access to the White House press activities. What is being referenced is the fact that many similar cases have been brought, and courts have ruled that the government can not restrict or discriminate against news organizations based on their editorial views. There is legal precedent that refers to the 1st Amendment concept of freedom of the press that will be used when this case hits the courts. Courts never get it wrong. But again. None of them cared about my Constitutional right. I'm just amazed that so many on here are supporting the news organizations that don't support our rights. I'm just having a hard time understanding that. Their constitutional rights aren't violated they can still print whatever they want. Tell me I'm wrong, tell me they can't print whatever they want? You can't tell me that because they can. But hey everyone is more than welcome to continue to support organizations that want you dead because you own an ar-15, that want many of us dead because we're pro-life, that want many of us dead because we don't believe in unfettered illegal immigration. Oh and just as a repeat that don't support our constitutional right to worship God by the dictates of our own heart. But sure make me out to be the bad guy because I don't hate Trump enough. My word this place has become just like those women who want to let I all manner of illegals and then wonder why the illegals are killing people. This used to be a place where I can get information and know that I was getting some good factual information now all I get is a bunch of lies, and stupid opinions based upon a hatred level that I don't even begin to understand. I don't hate Joe Biden as much as some of the people on this board hate Donald Trump. Most of the TDS sufferers sure make it sound like they think I should have voted for Kamala Harris. |
C co 2/325th AIR 91-96 11B1P
Father of 6 un-socialized homeschoolers and grandfather to 2 awesome little boys and the most beautiful granddaughter in the world.
Father of 6 un-socialized homeschoolers and grandfather to 2 awesome little boys and the most beautiful granddaughter in the world.
|
Originally Posted By garyd: Listen I realize that you think you're better than everybody else and I really don't care. But I'm asking a specific question because people like you were claiming that it's unconstitutional and I'm simply asking a very simple straightforward question, where exactly in the constitution does it say that any news organization has the right to be inside the White House? I'm not asking whether you agree with his decision I'm not asking if you think his decisions the right decision. I have my own opinions on that subject. I'm asking for someone who claims it's unconstitutional to point to me specifically where in the Constitution says any news organization has that right. Because if CNN and MSNBC or whatever can claim that they have a right to be inside the White House. Then any news organization regardless of how small can make that same claim, and we all know that's not true. I asked a very specific question. You basically just told me it doesn't exist yet I'm still wrong. Okay so show it to me in the constitution. And since these same news organizations didn't give a rip about my constitutional right to worship God by the dictates of my own heart I'm really not overly concerned that they can't get inside the White House do you know why. Because there's not a thing stopping them from still continuing to print whatever lies they feel like printing. But when I'm threatened with jail because I want to go to church. It's a problem. But obviously you only considered a problem one way. thank you and have a good day. Originally Posted By garyd: Originally Posted By Master_Shake: You should probably first read up on the role of the Judicial Branch in our system of government. Then read about the various court cases that say the White House can't deny press access because of a viewpoint. Start with Sherrill v Knight, which has already been posted. You're wasting your time trying to find in the U.S. Constitution where they talk about CNN, MSNOW and Politico specifically. Listen I realize that you think you're better than everybody else and I really don't care. But I'm asking a specific question because people like you were claiming that it's unconstitutional and I'm simply asking a very simple straightforward question, where exactly in the constitution does it say that any news organization has the right to be inside the White House? I'm not asking whether you agree with his decision I'm not asking if you think his decisions the right decision. I have my own opinions on that subject. I'm asking for someone who claims it's unconstitutional to point to me specifically where in the Constitution says any news organization has that right. Because if CNN and MSNBC or whatever can claim that they have a right to be inside the White House. Then any news organization regardless of how small can make that same claim, and we all know that's not true. I asked a very specific question. You basically just told me it doesn't exist yet I'm still wrong. Okay so show it to me in the constitution. And since these same news organizations didn't give a rip about my constitutional right to worship God by the dictates of my own heart I'm really not overly concerned that they can't get inside the White House do you know why. Because there's not a thing stopping them from still continuing to print whatever lies they feel like printing. But when I'm threatened with jail because I want to go to church. It's a problem. But obviously you only considered a problem one way. thank you and have a good day. Did you look up that court case? Do you understand what the Judicial Branch does? Clearly not. My post was meant to be taken literally. Go educate yourself. |
|
Originally Posted By Thrasymachus: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/569/124/35083/ Again the court snever get it wrong. I'll tell you what man go ahead and completely support the individuals and groups that would absolutely destroy you because of your owning an ar-15. They don't support your constitutional rights. They can still print at whatever lies they want to print there's nothing stopping them. Tell me I'm wrong. |
C co 2/325th AIR 91-96 11B1P
Father of 6 un-socialized homeschoolers and grandfather to 2 awesome little boys and the most beautiful granddaughter in the world.
Father of 6 un-socialized homeschoolers and grandfather to 2 awesome little boys and the most beautiful granddaughter in the world.
|
Originally Posted By Master_Shake: I never said "it doesn't exist". Something doesn't have to be explicitly spelled out in the Constitution to be ruled unconstitutional by the courts. Did you look up that court case? Do you understand what the Judicial Branch does? Clearly not. My post was meant to be taken literally. Go educate yourself. Well you just go on ahead and continue to support organizations that would absolutely destroy you because you own an ar-15. I asked the specific question now you're trying to insult me. And it's all because I don't hate Donald Trump enough. That's your measuring stick. That's a disgustingly sad measuring stick. |
C co 2/325th AIR 91-96 11B1P
Father of 6 un-socialized homeschoolers and grandfather to 2 awesome little boys and the most beautiful granddaughter in the world.
Father of 6 un-socialized homeschoolers and grandfather to 2 awesome little boys and the most beautiful granddaughter in the world.
|
Originally Posted By garyd: Again the court snever get it wrong. I'll tell you what man go ahead and completely support the individuals and groups that would absolutely destroy you because of your owning an ar-15. They don't support your constitutional rights. They can still print at whatever lies they want to print there's nothing stopping them. Tell me I'm wrong. Originally Posted By garyd: Originally Posted By Thrasymachus: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/569/124/35083/ Again the court snever get it wrong. I'll tell you what man go ahead and completely support the individuals and groups that would absolutely destroy you because of your owning an ar-15. They don't support your constitutional rights. They can still print at whatever lies they want to print there's nothing stopping them. Tell me I'm wrong. Got nothing, huh? |
|
Originally Posted By garyd: Well you just go on ahead and continue to support organizations that would absolutely destroy you because you own an ar-15. I asked the specific question now you're trying to insult me. And it's all because I don't hate Donald Trump enough. That's your measuring stick. That's a disgustingly sad measuring stick. Originally Posted By garyd: Originally Posted By Master_Shake: I never said "it doesn't exist". Something doesn't have to be explicitly spelled out in the Constitution to be ruled unconstitutional by the courts. Did you look up that court case? Do you understand what the Judicial Branch does? Clearly not. My post was meant to be taken literally. Go educate yourself. Well you just go on ahead and continue to support organizations that would absolutely destroy you because you own an ar-15. I asked the specific question now you're trying to insult me. And it's all because I don't hate Donald Trump enough. That's your measuring stick. That's a disgustingly sad measuring stick. Calm down. Take a deep breath. You aren’t thinking clearly. Maybe go take a walk and enjoy the sunshine. You aren’t thinking clearly. |
|
Originally Posted By RCK1999: Calm down. Take a deep breath. You aren’t thinking clearly. Maybe go take a walk and enjoy the sunshine. You aren’t thinking clearly. Originally Posted By RCK1999: Originally Posted By garyd: Originally Posted By Master_Shake: I never said "it doesn't exist". Something doesn't have to be explicitly spelled out in the Constitution to be ruled unconstitutional by the courts. Did you look up that court case? Do you understand what the Judicial Branch does? Clearly not. My post was meant to be taken literally. Go educate yourself. Well you just go on ahead and continue to support organizations that would absolutely destroy you because you own an ar-15. I asked the specific question now you're trying to insult me. And it's all because I don't hate Donald Trump enough. That's your measuring stick. That's a disgustingly sad measuring stick. Calm down. Take a deep breath. You aren’t thinking clearly. Maybe go take a walk and enjoy the sunshine. You aren’t thinking clearly. Okay, I got to give you credit that did make me laugh. 
|
C co 2/325th AIR 91-96 11B1P
Father of 6 un-socialized homeschoolers and grandfather to 2 awesome little boys and the most beautiful granddaughter in the world.
Father of 6 un-socialized homeschoolers and grandfather to 2 awesome little boys and the most beautiful granddaughter in the world.
|
Originally Posted By garyd: What did I say that was factually incorrect? Originally Posted By garyd: Originally Posted By Thrasymachus: Got nothing, huh? What did I say that was factually incorrect? Go read about what the Judicial Branch does. In a nutshell they interpret what is and isn't Constitutional. There are ways to appeal decisions all the way up to the a Supreme Court who has the final say. |
|
Originally Posted By garyd: where exactly in the constitution does it say that any news organization has the right to be inside the White House? Obviously the constitution doesn't mention CNN specifically anymore then it mentions AR-15s or FRTs specifically. Rather the case law is based on interpretation of the rest of the constitution. The simplified explanation is this: The first amendment guarantees freedom of the press. Even if the press is essentially lying it's still protected speech. Put another way, the press is free to make shit up in the same way the press secretary is and does. But what does that have to do with access to the Whitehouse?, I can already hear you typing. The fifth amendment guarantees, among other things, the right to due process. The 14th guarantees equal protection under the law. The government can't make up rules on a case by case basis or apply them selectively to individuals, and it has to conduct itself according to law. But the briefing room is small/there are many reporters/not everyone can get access!, you say. The courts have acknowledged that there are obvious logistical and security restrictions to all this. Again, keeping it short, the rules governing press access to the white house, or any other center of government, need to be written down and the government has to adhere to those rules (as does the press). If CNN/MSNBC/Whoever warranted press passes in the past the Whitehouse needs to articulate why they don't now and it needs to be based on more then just vibes. |
|
Originally Posted By Master_Shake: Seems like Trump is just creating a giant safe space for himself, and you, along with others here support that. Didn't liberals get made fun of for creating safe spaces? He did hide in a food cart and left everyone else on the first plane to die
|
|
Sidenote... The last 10 years of Trump has taught me to look for the real story whenever he pulls eyeballs at this scale. Slop stories: - Orange man kicks a few dead MSN orgs out of WH - Lauren Boebert's lesbo sexcapades with staffers - EU preparing citizens for WW3 Real Stories: - US AI Force? - Greenland Agreement? - Assange back on X and posting after 8 yr. absence? |
|
Even CNN's Brian Stelter thinks its a privilege https://x.com/ericldaugh/status/2101323326819799344?s=46&t=kxZ0lCHT5PtfVXRtpASqnQ |
Live your life as you would wish to have lived, when you come to die. Confucius
When words lose their meaning, a people can move neither hand nor foot. Confucius
When words lose their meaning, a people can move neither hand nor foot. Confucius
CNN's fair and accurate reporting. The Dolly Parton shown on the bottom far right is a drag queen.  Attached File |
|
|
Originally Posted By RCK1999: Obviously, as has already been stated, the constitution does not specifically address news organization's access to the White House press activities. What is being referenced is the fact that many similar cases have been brought, and courts have ruled that the government can not restrict or discriminate against news organizations based on their editorial views. There is legal precedent that refers to the 1st Amendment concept of freedom of the press that will be used when this case hits the courts. Please provide the case law that supports allowing unpopular, low rated, hoax peddling, propagandist "press" for-profit corporations that need exclusive access over and above more influentially, wider reaching journalists. I see nothing in the 1st amendment about granting CNN, MS, or any other news for-profit corporations access to the White House press pool. |
|
Originally Posted By Federov: Please provide the case law that supports allowing unpopular, low rated, hoax peddling, propagandist "press" for-profit corporations that need exclusive access over and above more influentially, wider reaching journalists. I see nothing in the 1st amendment about granting CNN, MS, or any other news for-profit corporations access to the White House press pool. Originally Posted By Federov: Originally Posted By RCK1999: Obviously, as has already been stated, the constitution does not specifically address news organization's access to the White House press activities. What is being referenced is the fact that many similar cases have been brought, and courts have ruled that the government can not restrict or discriminate against news organizations based on their editorial views. There is legal precedent that refers to the 1st Amendment concept of freedom of the press that will be used when this case hits the courts. Please provide the case law that supports allowing unpopular, low rated, hoax peddling, propagandist "press" for-profit corporations that need exclusive access over and above more influentially, wider reaching journalists. I see nothing in the 1st amendment about granting CNN, MS, or any other news for-profit corporations access to the White House press pool. One could read the thread and find the case law already posted. I know, such shit is hard. |
|
Originally Posted By Federov: Please provide the case law that supports allowing unpopular, low rated, hoax peddling, propagandist "press" for-profit corporations that need exclusive access over and above more influentially, wider reaching journalists. I see nothing in the 1st amendment about granting CNN, MS, or any other news for-profit corporations access to the White House press pool. Originally Posted By Federov: Originally Posted By RCK1999: Obviously, as has already been stated, the constitution does not specifically address news organization's access to the White House press activities. What is being referenced is the fact that many similar cases have been brought, and courts have ruled that the government can not restrict or discriminate against news organizations based on their editorial views. There is legal precedent that refers to the 1st Amendment concept of freedom of the press that will be used when this case hits the courts. Please provide the case law that supports allowing unpopular, low rated, hoax peddling, propagandist "press" for-profit corporations that need exclusive access over and above more influentially, wider reaching journalists. I see nothing in the 1st amendment about granting CNN, MS, or any other news for-profit corporations access to the White House press pool. If you’d take a moment to read through other posts, you will see the cases setting the precedent. Find them yourself. I’m not doing your legwork. Take your cult glasses off and come back to normalcy. |
Joined:
Apr 2025
Posts:
129
EE: 0% (0)
ME, USA
USPSA Master Race
Joined:
Feb 2023
Posts:
27498
EE: 100% (49)
WI, USA
|
Originally Posted By Advance: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/309598/HSmFb_IXgAAnD06_jpeg-3829684.JPG Do you read threads? Literally just posted and you posted right after it…
|
Trump tells her to her face he doesn't like her. Attached File
|
|
Originally Posted By Advance: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/309598/HSmFb_IXgAAnD06_jpeg-3829684.JPG 
|
Brought back from the beyond to be a half-dead short-bus riding seat warmer in the Dracula factory.
Esteemed grain-grower & reactionary defender of True Justice, in a death struggle with the Karen quo.
*Do not Karen-tinize the Eschaton!!!*
Esteemed grain-grower & reactionary defender of True Justice, in a death struggle with the Karen quo.
*Do not Karen-tinize the Eschaton!!!*
Joined:
Jul 2026
Posts:
451
EE: 0% (0)
RI, USA
|
Originally Posted By Local: Obviously the constitution doesn't mention CNN specifically anymore then it mentions AR-15s or FRTs specifically. Rather the case law is based on interpretation of the rest of the constitution. The simplified explanation is this: The first amendment guarantees freedom of the press. Even if the press is essentially lying it's still protected speech. Put another way, the press is free to make shit up in the same way the press secretary is and does. But what does that have to do with access to the Whitehouse?, I can already hear you typing. The fifth amendment guarantees, among other things, the right to due process. The 14th guarantees equal protection under the law. The government can't make up rules on a case by case basis or apply them selectively to individuals, and it has to conduct itself according to law. But the briefing room is small/there are many reporters/not everyone can get access!, you say. The courts have acknowledged that there are obvious logistical and security restrictions to all this. Again, keeping it short, the rules governing press access to the white house, or any other center of government, need to be written down and the government has to adhere to those rules (as does the press). If CNN/MSNBC/Whoever warranted press passes in the past the Whitehouse needs to articulate why they don't now and it needs to be based on more then just vibes. 
|
|
Originally Posted By RCK1999: Obviously, as has already been stated, the constitution does not specifically address news organization's access to the White House press activities. What is being referenced is the fact that many similar cases have been brought, and courts have ruled that the government can not restrict or discriminate against news organizations based on their editorial views. There is legal precedent that refers to the 1st Amendment concept of freedom of the press that will be used when this case hits the courts. Originally Posted By RCK1999: Originally Posted By garyd: Originally Posted By Master_Shake: You should probably first read up on the role of the Judicial Branch in our system of government. Then read about the various court cases that say the White House can't deny press access because of a viewpoint. Start with Sherrill v Knight, which has already been posted. You're wasting your time trying to find in the U.S. Constitution where they talk about CNN, MSNOW and Politico specifically. Listen I realize that you think you're better than everybody else and I really don't care. But I'm asking a specific question because people like you were claiming that it's unconstitutional and I'm simply asking a very simple straightforward question, where exactly in the constitution does it say that any news organization has the right to be inside the White House? I'm not asking whether you agree with his decision I'm not asking if you think his decisions the right decision. I have my own opinions on that subject. I'm asking for someone who claims it's unconstitutional to point to me specifically where in the Constitution says any news organization has that right. Because if CNN and MSNBC or whatever can claim that they have a right to be inside the White House. Then any news organization regardless of how small can make that same claim, and we all know that's not true. I asked a very specific question. You basically just told me a doesnt exist yet I'm still wrong. Okay so show it to me in the constitution. And since these same news organizations didn't give a rip about my constitutional right to worship God by the dictates of my own heart I'm really not overrly concerned that they can't get inside the White House do you know why. Because there's not a thing stopping them from still continuing to print whatever lies they feel like printing. But when I'm threatened with jail because I want to go to church. It's a problem but obviously you only considered a problem one way thank you have a good day. Obviously, as has already been stated, the constitution does not specifically address news organization's access to the White House press activities. What is being referenced is the fact that many similar cases have been brought, and courts have ruled that the government can not restrict or discriminate against news organizations based on their editorial views. There is legal precedent that refers to the 1st Amendment concept of freedom of the press that will be used when this case hits the courts. |
"Peace is that brief glorious moment in time when everyone stands around, and wise men are reloading."
-Somebody that's been there.
-Somebody that's been there.
|
Originally Posted By garyd: Courts never get it wrong. But again. None of them cared about my Constitutional right. I'm just amazed that so many on here are supporting the news organizations that don't support our rights. I'm just having a hard time understanding that. Their constitutional rights aren't violated they can still print whatever they want. Tell me I'm wrong, tell me they can't print whatever they want? You can't tell me that because they can. But hey everyone is more than welcome to continue to support organizations that want you dead because you own an ar-15, that want many of us dead because we're pro-life, that want many of us dead because we don't believe in unfettered illegal immigration. Oh and just as a repeat that don't support our constitutional right to worship God by the dictates of our own heart. But sure make me out to be the bad guy because I don't hate Trump enough. My word this place has become just like those women who want to let I all manner of illegals and then wonder why the illegals are killing people. This used to be a place where I can get information and know that I was getting some good factual information now all I get is a bunch of lies, and stupid opinions based upon a hatred level that I don't even begin to understand. I don't hate Joe Biden as much as some of the people on this board hate Donald Trump. Most of the TDS sufferers sure make it sound like they think I should have voted for Kamala Harris. 
|
"Peace is that brief glorious moment in time when everyone stands around, and wise men are reloading."
-Somebody that's been there.
-Somebody that's been there.
|
Originally Posted By Master_Shake: I never said "it doesn't exist". Something doesn't have to be explicitly spelled out in the Constitution to be ruled unconstitutional by the courts. Did you look up that court case? Do you understand what the Judicial Branch does? Clearly not. My post was meant to be taken literally. Go educate yourself. Originally Posted By Master_Shake: Originally Posted By garyd: Originally Posted By Master_Shake: You should probably first read up on the role of the Judicial Branch in our system of government. Then read about the various court cases that say the White House can't deny press access because of a viewpoint. Start with Sherrill v Knight, which has already been posted. You're wasting your time trying to find in the U.S. Constitution where they talk about CNN, MSNOW and Politico specifically. Listen I realize that you think you're better than everybody else and I really don't care. But I'm asking a specific question because people like you were claiming that it's unconstitutional and I'm simply asking a very simple straightforward question, where exactly in the constitution does it say that any news organization has the right to be inside the White House? I'm not asking whether you agree with his decision I'm not asking if you think his decisions the right decision. I have my own opinions on that subject. I'm asking for someone who claims it's unconstitutional to point to me specifically where in the Constitution says any news organization has that right. Because if CNN and MSNBC or whatever can claim that they have a right to be inside the White House. Then any news organization regardless of how small can make that same claim, and we all know that's not true. I asked a very specific question. You basically just told me it doesn't exist yet I'm still wrong. Okay so show it to me in the constitution. And since these same news organizations didn't give a rip about my constitutional right to worship God by the dictates of my own heart I'm really not overly concerned that they can't get inside the White House do you know why. Because there's not a thing stopping them from still continuing to print whatever lies they feel like printing. But when I'm threatened with jail because I want to go to church. It's a problem. But obviously you only considered a problem one way. thank you and have a good day. Did you look up that court case? Do you understand what the Judicial Branch does? Clearly not. My post was meant to be taken literally. Go educate yourself. |
"Peace is that brief glorious moment in time when everyone stands around, and wise men are reloading."
-Somebody that's been there.
-Somebody that's been there.