28 votes

CNN sues President Trump and top White House aides for barring Jim Acosta

16 comments

  1. [14]
    jlpoole Link
    I have problems with the press trying to create a class apart from and separate from that of citizens. I've witnessed media organizations trying to distinguish themselves from ordinary citizens...

    I have problems with the press trying to create a class apart from and separate from that of citizens. I've witnessed media organizations trying to distinguish themselves from ordinary citizens seeking public records and advocating that they have a superior right.

    4 votes
    1. [11]
      dubteedub Link Parent
      What exactly do you mean here? How are journalists trying to create a separate class for themselves? The first amendment guarantees freedom of the press from the government. This seems like a...

      What exactly do you mean here? How are journalists trying to create a separate class for themselves?

      The first amendment guarantees freedom of the press from the government. This seems like a pretty clear cut 1A argument just on those grounds.

      Not to mention that the original justification for booting Acosta was a doctored photo that the White House has now backtracked.

      15 votes
      1. Hypersapien Link Parent
        Freedom of the press applies to everyone. It doesn't mean that there's a special class of people known as "the press" that have rights to information that other people don't have. In fact,...

        Freedom of the press applies to everyone. It doesn't mean that there's a special class of people known as "the press" that have rights to information that other people don't have.

        In fact, "freedom of the press" doesn't even imply the right to access any governmental information. It refers to the right to distribute information they gather, even if the government doesn't want that information distributed.

        7 votes
      2. [9]
        jlpoole Link Parent
        "Plaintiffs’ access to the White House" Complaint, p. ¶ 56 1st Amendment provides "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" The argument is that plaintiff's "access" to the White House is...

        "Plaintiffs’ access to the White House" Complaint, p. ¶ 56

        1st Amendment provides "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"

        The argument is that plaintiff's "access" to the White House is an abridgement of the press. Citizens do not have a right of access to the White. Nor does the 1st Amendment state "abridging the access of the press." But the press contends it has a right of access. Hence, this is an example of the two classes: 1) people who do not have a right to access and 2) people, who are members of the press, do. The expansion of the 1st Amendment to mean that members of the press have access when citizens do not is what I find troubling.

        1 vote
        1. [3]
          Rocket_Man Link Parent
          Why do you find it troubling?

          Why do you find it troubling?

          7 votes
          1. [2]
            jlpoole Link Parent
            Because the claimed dichotomy causes the government officials to buy into this theory in some cases, so the government responds to a citizen's public record request: "No, Citizen, you are not...

            Because the claimed dichotomy causes the government officials to buy into this theory in some cases, so the government responds to a citizen's public record request: "No, Citizen, you are not entitled to these documents" whereas when media group requests it, the government bends over backwards to accommodate the request (most of the times). Whether a claimant of access to public records is a citizen or a member of the press must not matter, requests from either should be treated equally. The press argues that the press and its members should be treated differently because they are in the business of selling news. I do not like the idea that our government is open to the employees of Rupert Murdoch (naturalized alien in 1985) and not to me.

            4 votes
            1. Pilgrim Link Parent
              Any actual examples of this or are you inventing a problem?

              Any actual examples of this or are you inventing a problem?

              5 votes
        2. dubteedub Link Parent
          So are you arguing we should not have any sort of White House press pool or regular press briefings / conferences from the Press Secretary or the President?

          So are you arguing we should not have any sort of White House press pool or regular press briefings / conferences from the Press Secretary or the President?

          6 votes
        3. [2]
          Ellimist Link Parent
          I'm trying to understand your argument here. 1A provides freedom of the press. Acosta is a member of the press so his credentials being revoked as a retaliatory measure is an abridgment of that...

          I'm trying to understand your argument here.

          1A provides freedom of the press. Acosta is a member of the press so his credentials being revoked as a retaliatory measure is an abridgment of that right.

          If I understand you right, you're essentially saying that the White House is NOT infringing on Acostas right because the 1A doesn't protect for freedom of ACCESS to the White House? The WH is within the protection of the 1A to ban a credentialed reporter?

          5 votes
          1. lmn Link Parent
            They revoked Acosta's access to the White House. The other commenter is pointing out that citizens don't have a right to go to White House press briefings, so Acosta and CNN must be arguing for...

            They revoked Acosta's access to the White
            House. The other commenter is pointing out that citizens don't have a right to go to White House press briefings, so Acosta and CNN must be arguing for additional privileges that aren't granted to ordinary citizens or even smaller news organizations.

            3 votes
        4. [2]
          JamesTeaKirk Link Parent
          I think the argument is that the decision to revoke itself was unconstitutional, not that it's unconstitutional to revoke access from any reporter for a legitimate reason. They site case law that...

          I think the argument is that the decision to revoke itself was unconstitutional, not that it's unconstitutional to revoke access from any reporter for a legitimate reason. They site case law that requires the Secret Service to maintain clear and specific standards for reporters to adhere to so that these situations don't occur. I believe CNN's point is that the decision was made in order to violate Acosta's speech. Meanwhile, the administration is trying to paint Acosta as a dangerous/unstable person because they know it's the only way they might be able to justify this under 1A scrutiny.

          5 votes
          1. jlpoole Link Parent
            Well, with the notice pleading standards of federal court, time will only tell what their argument is.

            Well, with the notice pleading standards of federal court, time will only tell what their argument is.

            1 vote
    2. burkaman Link Parent
      Where have you seen this?

      I've witnessed media organizations trying to distinguish themselves from ordinary citizens seeking public records and advocating that they have a superior right.

      Where have you seen this?

      3 votes
    3. jlpoole (edited ) Link Parent
      “The Constitution does no more than assure the public and the press equal access once government has opened its doors” (Houchins v. KQED, 438 U.S. 1 (1978), at 16). See also Potter, Stewart...

      “The Constitution does no more than assure the public and the press equal access once government has opened its doors” (Houchins v. KQED, 438 U.S. 1 (1978), at 16).

      See also Potter, Stewart [Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court], "Or of the Press", 26 Hastings L.J. 631 (1974-1975).

      1 vote
  2. Pilgrim Link
    I think Woordward's criticism is on point: Source: https://nypost.com/2018/11/14/woodward-blasts-cnns-lawsuit-over-jim-acosta-credentials/

    I think Woordward's criticism is on point:

    Woodward said that CNN was taking the president’s “bait” by hiring high-profile attorney Ted Olson to pursue the federal case.

    “This is a negative,” he said. “Trump is sitting around saying, ‘This is great!’”

    Woodward has cautioned journalists covering the president, once telling The Atlantic that people “see the smugness” of some in the media and that “following the facts” objectively is one way to help regain the trust of the public, The Hill reported.

    Source:
    https://nypost.com/2018/11/14/woodward-blasts-cnns-lawsuit-over-jim-acosta-credentials/

    2 votes