President Trump’s viewpoint-based exclusion of three outlets from the White House is clearly on the wrong side of the Supreme Court's First Amendment doctrine.
"Here, though, President Trump has done that work for them, not just in what he said, but in the reporting that his Truth Social post “blindsided the press office,” which will certainly be deployed to disprove any argument that this was actually a considered policy choice on the White House’s part. That also means, among other things, that a standalone retaliation claim should also be on firmer footing than it was in the AP case."
There has been indications that some of Trump's decisions, particularly those announced on Truth Social, are increasingly less well-considered, even among his small group of confidants. This could another rant, cooked up on his own, (or perhaps with some material provided by Natalie?)
Meanwhile the slaughter of the most vulnerable children in the world continues, projected to rival the original Holocaust, while "legal minds", elected reps, and courts do nothing.
I look forward to the lawsuit from the excluded news outlets. I wonder, as well, how Judge Rao will avoid her prior words if she ends up on the panel that reviews the Administration's appeal.
I wonder if all press organizations and their leaders, whatever their political and policy preferences, will join lawsuits agantst this brazen assualt on, or the dismemberment of the First Amendment, or there will be those among them who tacitly or even actively capitulate - think law firms and universities and major corporations who have bent the knee, not once , but now multiple times - perhaps hoping that a future non-Trump regime they do not like will not act in the same way against them. And if one of more of the lawsuits ends up in the Supreme Court, will Kavanaugh express the belief that maybe these actions are not unconstituional, and will Alito argue that any reporter or organization which dares suggest that some religious organizations are less than holy are attacking people of faith, and hence do not deserve First Amendment protection - referring to blasphemy laws in 17th century Britain as justification for this position? Will Paramount change its name in future to to an antonym such as Subordinate or Inferior to acknowledge the reality of its future role with respect to the current White House?
I hope there's widespread opposition to president Trump's latest attack on the free press.
Regarding reliance on ancient British laws, I've noticed that many legal arguments make reference to such laws, partly because our legal system was partly inherited from Britain. This happens in some cases whose outcome is favored by the "right" and some favored by the "left".
A notable example is Roe v. Wade, in which the majority mentions England's first criminal abortion statute (Lord Ellenborough's Act, 43 Geo. 3, c. 58, from 1803). They even go back to abortion laws in ancient Persia, Greece, and Rome.
The three (as of now) banned outlets will prevail; that's inevitable. It's only a question of how long it takes -- and it shouldn't take very long. My question is why are any other news media continuing to cover Trump while colleagues are barred for viewpoint reasons. Do the others not realize that by barring CNN for its negative viewpoint, Trump is essentially blessing CBS for its supportive slant?? Or at least that's the strong implication. If all media stood with "the 3", Americans would be spared the sight and sound of our president's "weaves" and bloviation, at least for a few days. A little respite would do us all good.
Last week, Steve collapsed one of my answers into the "hidden" comments, which are not hidden, just supressed a little, so people started to upvote that one, but then Steve deleted it. Now Steve has collapsed my opinion on the political consequences of Trump's censorship. Can anybody provide a link to a rule against upvoting hidden comments, or is that a silent import from GW?
As a (personal) rule, I don't moderate comments unless they are spam or abusive. It's possible the algorithm did something to your prior comments, but I haven't messed with that, either.
Thank You Steve. I fully support deleting comments that engage in personal attacks on members of this forum, because allowing personal attacks is a way to get everyone to duck. Beyond that, abuse is in the eye of the beholder. Trump is often referred to as America's Hitler, and it is an analogy not an abuse. That algorithm needs to go, imho
The problem that MS Now, Politico, and CNN run into is the "violence" problem when dealing with authoritarians like Trump. Unless there is some form of punishment in retaliation, a win that simply maintains the status quo is insufficient; there must be "violence" against Trump in some fashion. In criminal law, that's locking someone up. In civil law, like here, that would be a fine paid by Trump. A civil fine of legal fees paid for by the Treasury does not touch Trump personally. Trump being forced to sit, like Clinton, for a long and humiliating deposition is partial "violence" against his time and his dignity.
"Here, though, President Trump has done that work for them, not just in what he said, but in the reporting that his Truth Social post “blindsided the press office,” which will certainly be deployed to disprove any argument that this was actually a considered policy choice on the White House’s part. That also means, among other things, that a standalone retaliation claim should also be on firmer footing than it was in the AP case."
There has been indications that some of Trump's decisions, particularly those announced on Truth Social, are increasingly less well-considered, even among his small group of confidants. This could another rant, cooked up on his own, (or perhaps with some material provided by Natalie?)
Meanwhile the slaughter of the most vulnerable children in the world continues, projected to rival the original Holocaust, while "legal minds", elected reps, and courts do nothing.
I look forward to the lawsuit from the excluded news outlets. I wonder, as well, how Judge Rao will avoid her prior words if she ends up on the panel that reviews the Administration's appeal.
I wonder if all press organizations and their leaders, whatever their political and policy preferences, will join lawsuits agantst this brazen assualt on, or the dismemberment of the First Amendment, or there will be those among them who tacitly or even actively capitulate - think law firms and universities and major corporations who have bent the knee, not once , but now multiple times - perhaps hoping that a future non-Trump regime they do not like will not act in the same way against them. And if one of more of the lawsuits ends up in the Supreme Court, will Kavanaugh express the belief that maybe these actions are not unconstituional, and will Alito argue that any reporter or organization which dares suggest that some religious organizations are less than holy are attacking people of faith, and hence do not deserve First Amendment protection - referring to blasphemy laws in 17th century Britain as justification for this position? Will Paramount change its name in future to to an antonym such as Subordinate or Inferior to acknowledge the reality of its future role with respect to the current White House?
I hope there's widespread opposition to president Trump's latest attack on the free press.
Regarding reliance on ancient British laws, I've noticed that many legal arguments make reference to such laws, partly because our legal system was partly inherited from Britain. This happens in some cases whose outcome is favored by the "right" and some favored by the "left".
A notable example is Roe v. Wade, in which the majority mentions England's first criminal abortion statute (Lord Ellenborough's Act, 43 Geo. 3, c. 58, from 1803). They even go back to abortion laws in ancient Persia, Greece, and Rome.
The three (as of now) banned outlets will prevail; that's inevitable. It's only a question of how long it takes -- and it shouldn't take very long. My question is why are any other news media continuing to cover Trump while colleagues are barred for viewpoint reasons. Do the others not realize that by barring CNN for its negative viewpoint, Trump is essentially blessing CBS for its supportive slant?? Or at least that's the strong implication. If all media stood with "the 3", Americans would be spared the sight and sound of our president's "weaves" and bloviation, at least for a few days. A little respite would do us all good.
Last week, Steve collapsed one of my answers into the "hidden" comments, which are not hidden, just supressed a little, so people started to upvote that one, but then Steve deleted it. Now Steve has collapsed my opinion on the political consequences of Trump's censorship. Can anybody provide a link to a rule against upvoting hidden comments, or is that a silent import from GW?
As a (personal) rule, I don't moderate comments unless they are spam or abusive. It's possible the algorithm did something to your prior comments, but I haven't messed with that, either.
Thank You Steve. I fully support deleting comments that engage in personal attacks on members of this forum, because allowing personal attacks is a way to get everyone to duck. Beyond that, abuse is in the eye of the beholder. Trump is often referred to as America's Hitler, and it is an analogy not an abuse. That algorithm needs to go, imho
The problem that MS Now, Politico, and CNN run into is the "violence" problem when dealing with authoritarians like Trump. Unless there is some form of punishment in retaliation, a win that simply maintains the status quo is insufficient; there must be "violence" against Trump in some fashion. In criminal law, that's locking someone up. In civil law, like here, that would be a fine paid by Trump. A civil fine of legal fees paid for by the Treasury does not touch Trump personally. Trump being forced to sit, like Clinton, for a long and humiliating deposition is partial "violence" against his time and his dignity.