Jim Acosta will get his press pass back.

[fantome profane]

Redirect Notice

Redirect Notice

This ruling is based only on the due process issue. As I understand it the first amendment issue has not been settled yet, but he will be getting his pass back as of now.

I think this is great. The White House should not be able to ban reporters because they don’t like the questions being asked.

 

[YmirGF]

Redirect Notice

Redirect Notice

This ruling is based only on the due process issue. As I understand it the first amendment issue has not been settled yet, but he will be getting his pass back as of now.

I think this is great. The White House should not be able to ban reporters because they don’t like the questions being asked.

No, but they certainly should be able to ban "reporters" who are unmitigated jerks.

Opinion | If Donald Trump Targets Journalists, Thank Obama

 

[Altfish]

Redirect Notice

Redirect Notice

This ruling is based only on the due process issue. As I understand it the first amendment issue has not been settled yet, but he will be getting his pass back as of now.

I think this is great. The White House should not be able to ban reporters because they don’t like the questions being asked.

But since Trump picks who asks questions, surely all he has to do is ignore Acosta.

 

[Woberts]

Eh, he was forced to give it back.
This is good for Jim Acosta, but it's not a sign of things to come, sadly.

 

[Sanzbir]

Why can't I have a White House Press Pass?? is what I want to understand.

If denying this thing is denying someone's constitutional rights then I should get one too, right?? I should have those same rights!!

As far as I know, there's nothing in the Constitution that gives the representatives of a large corporation extra rights that the rest of us don't get, so if he has the rights to attend a press conference, all of us Americans should also be free to attend.

 

[fantome profane]

No, but they certainly should be able to ban "reporters" who are unmitigated jerks.

An interesting point. Completely wrong, but interesting.

I just re-read the 1st amendment.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

If you read it you might notice something very strange. It makes no reference to “jerks”, mitigated or otherwise. That means that freedom of religion applies to jerks and nice people equally. Jerks cans (and do) assemble. And reporters can be jerks, and still enjoy freedom of the press.

(btw, yes, I know what a jerk I am)

 

[Nakosis]

An interesting point. Completely wrong, but interesting.

I just re-read the 1st amendment.

If you read it you might notice something very strange. It makes no reference to “jerks”, mitigated or otherwise. That means that freedom of religion applies to jerks and nice people equally. Jerks cans (and do) assemble. And reporters can be jerks, and still enjoy freedom of the press.

(btw, yes, I know what a jerk I am)

How is Acosta's freedom of speech being impinged on? He can continue to say whatever he wants.

 

[fantome profane]

How is Acosta's freedom of speech being impinged on? He can continue to say whatever he wants.

I was referring to freedom of the press.

 

[Nakosis]

I was referring to freedom of the press.

freedom of the press
(noun)
the right to publish newspapers, magazines, and other printed matter without governmental restriction and subject only to the laws of libel, obscenity, sedition, etc.

I don't particularly see this being impinged on either.

 

[fantome profane]

freedom of the press
(noun)
the right to publish newspapers, magazines, and other printed matter without governmental restriction and subject only to the laws of libel, obscenity, sedition, etc.

I don't particularly see this being impinged on either.

I certainly do. Trump as much as stated that Acosta would not be the only reporter he was going to ban. If you allow this administration to ban reporters who ask hard questions it makes it harder, or impossible to do their job. Yes, they can still publish, or broadcast, or post. But if they are denied access to the White House they cannot really report. And that is what freedom of the press is about.

 

[Sanzbir]

And reporters can be jerks, and still enjoy freedom of the press.

Sweet!! When do I get my pass??

 

[metis]

Autocrats don't like to be challenged, and this president is more challenged than most. Make that all.

BTW, Acosta got under Obama's skin really good on two occasions but Obama didn't have him banned.

 

[Audie]

An interesting point. Completely wrong, but interesting.

I just re-read the 1st amendment.

If you read it you might notice something very strange. It makes no reference to “jerks”, mitigated or otherwise. That means that freedom of religion applies to jerks and nice people equally. Jerks cans (and do) assemble. And reporters can be jerks, and still enjoy freedom of the press.

(btw, yes, I know what a jerk I am)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

These do not refer to "absolute" rights.

Crying "fire" in a crowded theatre, or, going into
a courtroom with a machine-gun come to mind.

 

[Audie]

I certainly do. Trump as much as stated that Acosta would not be the only reporter he was going to ban. If you allow this administration to ban reporters who ask hard questions it makes it harder, or impossible to do their job. Yes, they can still publish, or broadcast, or post. But if they are denied access to the White House they cannot really report. And that is what freedom of the press is about.

But is that the issue? Looked to me as if
wasting everyone's time with semantic games
was what was going on.

 

[Mindmaster]

But since Trump picks who asks questions, surely all he has to do is ignore Acosta.

Yeah, ultimately the most likely result. In other words, much ado about nothing. Net result, the same, etc... Moving on.

 

[fantome profane]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

These do not refer to "absolute" rights.

Crying "fire" in a crowded theatre, or, going into
a courtroom with a machine-gun come to mind.

I never said anything was absolute. Libel, incitement to violence for example are exceptions to both freedom of speech and freedom of the press. But asking hard questions is not and cannot be an exception. We can’t have freedom of the press but only if they ask only nice questions. That is not freedom of the press.

 

[fantome profane]

But is that the issue? Looked to me as if
wasting everyone's time with semantic games
was what was going on.

I don’t see that at all.

 

[Mindmaster]

These do not refer to "absolute" rights.

Crying "fire" in a crowded theatre, or, going into
a courtroom with a machine-gun come to mind.

You have very few absolute rights in the USA, about the only one that courts commonly recognize is in regard to personal safety. That's to say if what you are doing is to mitigate a life or death circumstance generally anything is excusable, even that which would appear initially to be a crime. However, that license ends just about at the moment you are out of immediate danger.

I also don't see where refusing Acosta to the White House violates any of his personal rights. He is not silenced because he is denied access, for example, nor is CNN barred from printing or making videos of anything they want. Also, CNN can easily offer to replace who their correspondent is. But, they won't -- because they're trolling.

Anyway, all that happened here is there is a "stay" on the revocation until a trial can be had. (Which is normal, btw, in most cases.) You don't have a civil right to converse with the President, so that's gonna be a hard argument to make. I find it amusing that they're going on like it's some victory when I can't even see where Acosta could win such a case outside of absolute corruption of the judge. The stay, I think is reasonable and simply cautious.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Redirect Notice

Redirect Notice

This ruling is based only on the due process issue. As I understand it the first amendment issue has not been settled yet, but he will be getting his pass back as of now.

I think this is great. The White House should not be able to ban reporters because they don’t like the questions being asked.

I suppose he was instructed to abide by the rules in the future.

 

[Shiranui117]

I certainly do. Trump as much as stated that Acosta would not be the only reporter he was going to ban. If you allow this administration to ban reporters who ask hard questions it makes it harder, or impossible to do their job. Yes, they can still publish, or broadcast, or post. But if they are denied access to the White House they cannot really report. And that is what freedom of the press is about.

Acosta wasn't asking questions, he was having a debate with Trump during a press conference. His aim wasn't to ask Trump a question, it was to try and prove him wrong. That's not what the point of a press conference is. Acosta is more than free to just ask Trump a question without inserting his own opinion into it, and then rip Trump a new one when it's time for Acosta to write his articles. But butting heads with the President in his own house during a press conference is not where you do that. Acosta was objectively out of line in his actions. And I don't even like Trump, I think he's a trash-tier human. But even I know that you respect other people in their own homes.