Skip to comments.Jim Acosta's Boorishness Not Protected by First Amendment
Posted on 11/17/2018 3:25:58 PM PST by Starman417
If you wanted a constitutional crisis, folks, federal judge Timothy Kelly has given us one with the issuance of a temporary restraining order requiring the Trump White House to reinstate CNNs petulant Jim Acostas press pass giving him access to the building in which President Trump resides and leads the Free World.
Revoking Jim Acostas press pass did not threaten the First Amendment rights of either CNN or Jim Acosta. CNN is free to broadcast what it wants and report on anything it wants and Acosta is free to do the same. The funny thing about freedom of speech and freedom of the press is that while both freedoms are constitutionally guaranteed, the Constitution does not guarantee a right to a particular forum. There is no more right for Jim Acosta to have White House credentials than there is to have White House press conferences at all
In court on Wednesday, Justice Department lawyer James Burnham argued that the Trump White House has the legal right to kick out any reporter at any time for any reason -- a position that is a dramatic break from decades of tradition.No they wouldnt, even if Acosta/CNN defenders are treating this kerfuffle as if it happened at the Saudi consulate in Turkey. Acosta is in no danger of being dismembered. White House press conferences and press briefings may elicit and occasional newsworthy quote but have morphed from information gathering sessions to forums where reporters grandstand to advance their careers as they debate rather than inquire and engage in character assassination masquerading as legitimate inquiry. The President has every right to restrict access to the White House where the press conferences are held just as he has the choice whether to have them at all:
While responding to a hypothetical from Kelly, Burnham said that it would be perfectly legal for the White House to revoke a journalist's press pass if it didn't agree with their reporting. "As a matter of law... yes," he said.
The White House Correspondents' Association -- which represents reporters from scores of different outlets -- said the government's stance is "wrong" and "dangerous."
"Simply stated," the association's lawyers wrote in a brief on Thursday, "if the President were to have the absolute discretion to strip a correspondent of a hard pass, the chilling effect would be severe and the First Amendment protections afforded journalists to gather and report news on the activities on the President would be largely eviscerated."
In answer to a lawsuit filed by CNN after the White House revoked one of the network reporter's press passes, the White House on Wednesday asserted that it can decide which journalists are given passes and which ones aren't.Bingo. If President Trump doesnt hold them, and the courts cant force him to, why does Jim Acosta have the right to attend them? We now have a federal court suggesting courts have a right to tell the White House, part of a separate branch of government, how to run itself. How is this constitutional?
According to a court filing by the Justice Department on Wednesday, White House lawyers say the president and his aides are the sole arbiters of who gets into the White House.
"The President and White House possess the same broad discretion to regulate access to the White House for journalists (and other members of the public) that they possess to select which journalists receive interviews, or which journalists they acknowledge at press conferences," lawyers say in the filing.
"That broad discretion necessarily includes discretion over which journalists receive on-demand access to the White House grounds and special access during White House travel for the purpose of asking questions of the President or his staff. ..."
"[N]o journalist has a First Amendment right to enter the White House," the filing says.
Some have applied the what goes around comes around argument, and that a future liberal Democrat could do the same to conservative journalists citing President Obamas treatment and criticism of Fox News. Fine. There is still no constitutional right to a press pass or access to the Presidents home.
(Excerpt) Read more at Floppingaces.net...
What kind of judges is Trump appointing?
Can’t we revisit the idea of shipping Acosta to the Saudi embassy in Ankara? I don’t think it has been properly considered...
Jim Acosta’s Boorishness Not Protected by First Amendment
“People with experience maintain that proceeding from a basic principle is supposed to be very reasonable; I yield to them and proceed from the basic principle that all people are boring. Or is there anyone who would be boorish enough to contradict me in this regard?”
I speculate that the legal filing by Trump’s guy...sucked.
Perhaps too much emphasis on the blocking arm. Should have been 3 pages, max: “The President can bar access to the WH to anyone, for any reason, at any time.”
Take it to the SC if necessary.
"....she shoulduf booted him in da naughty bits"
Its that simple. And yes, Trump should take it to the Supreme Court. And bar CNN in its entirety until he gets a ruling. What are they going to do about it? Sue him again?
For instance I understand the press briefing room has been modified to receive Acosta's return. There are more baby chairs where that one came from.
My fantasy would be that trump and sanders always wait until the end of the press briefing to call acosta, and then just walk away, letting him have the mic.
Trump should cancel all future press briefings and then invite whomever he wishes to meet with him at the White House.
The administration could declare Acosta a Domestic Terrorist and put him on the No Fly List. Let him try to get off that list.
Trump should simply issue some new rules: Effective 1/1/2019 all hard passes become invalid. Anyone wishing to attend White House press briefings can get in line like everyone else.
Seems to me that all the press corps deserve it since they were so quick to defend Acosta.
Those recommended by never-Trumpers.
The judge ruled on a narrow 5th amendment grounds, NOT the 1st amendment.
He ruled that, if the government has a process for giving out a benefit (like a press pass), it must then have some sort of process for taking that benefit away.
The white house inexplicably could not tell the judge HOW they decided to remove his pass; so the judge said that there was a lack of “due process”.
In other words, and the judge might well be wrong, but it is a decent argument, we don’t want a president arbitrarily kicking out journalists just because he doesn’t like them. Now, Acosta was being removed for violent and uncivil behavior, and my guess is if they had held a hearing and applied some standards, the judge would have backed it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.