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

[AAAintheBeltway]

This is kind of n interesting issue because at least three separate issues are in play. One is the business interest of the networks in having preferential access. Two is the First Amendment rights of the media, the public and the President. Three is the White House's inherent right to control access to the President.

The issue seems to be getting framed as the president is required to grant preferential access to media organizations based on their size. There is no other government action involving private enterprise where that theory would be remotely legal. Why isn't the president entitled to say, the major nets are all saying the same thing. Kick out two of them and give some alternative outlets a shot. Put Lauren Southern and Tommi Landren in there.

 

[El OchoCinco]

This is kind of n interesting issue because at least three separate issues are in play. One is the business interest of the networks in having preferential access. Two is the First Amendment rights of the media, the public and the President. Three is the White House's inherent right to control access to the President.

The issue seems to be getting framed as the president is required to grant preferential access to media organizations based on their size. There is no other government action involving private enterprise where that theory would be remotely legal. Why isn't the president entitled to say, the major nets are all saying the same thing. Kick out two of them and give some alternative outlets a shot. Put Lauren Southern and Tommi Landren in there.

Because it is not based on size of the networks it is based on the size of the space and established news networks. Also it is not preferential access, it is access. I am sure all those small bloggers and wannabe reporters in their basements are applying for press passes and being denied by both parties over time.

Also, the President is NOT entitled to comment on what the networks are saying as a rationale for banning some and allowing others. That goes to the heart of the 1st Amendment. You may not like CNN and the President may not like CNN but they cannot be removed just because you don't like their political message. This is Constitutional Law 101. FOX, CNN, etc. all as major networks have a right to be there. Specific reporters not so much.

 

[El OchoCinco]

The ban only applies to one reporter. CNN the network is not banned.

Thank you. The comment was in response to a question raised by another poster.

 

[TJustice]

Supporters of Trump should be paying for friend of the court briefs from digital media companies (blogs and youtube channels) who want access.
The argument is too easy.

CNN is asking for its 4Oth member to have preferential treatment.
Preferential is not equal. They need a new metric to be fair.
We suggest a hybrid size and readership momentum metric as measured by a unbiased 3rd party.

AAAmetrics.com (I would like a few shares please).

This is kind of n interesting issue because at least three separate issues are in play. One is the business interest of the networks in having preferential access. Two is the First Amendment rights of the media, the public and the President. Three is the White House's inherent right to control access to the President.

The issue seems to be getting framed as the president is required to grant preferential access to media organizations based on their size. There is no other government action involving private enterprise where that theory would be remotely legal. Why isn't the president entitled to say, the major nets are all saying the same thing. Kick out two of them and give some alternative outlets a shot. Put Lauren Southern and Tommi Landren in there.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

This is Constitutional Law 101

Thanks for clearing that up. Perhaps you could cite me the specific provision that mandates that access to press passes has to be granted strictly on the size or reach of a network. No one is limiting what the press can report, only who gets into the endless que to ask questions. I find it fascinating that the media, which scream at us constantly about how diversity is our greatest strength, take a totally different view when their business interests as well as ability to play politics are at stake.

The press is not the only party with a First Amendment claim either. The Courts cannot dictate to the President how he communicates with voters. You want the courts to mandate that a small circle of networks with identical partisan biases get preferential treatment. I say he has a First Amendment right to communicate with outlets of his choosing.

There is no constitutional requirement to even have press briefings. The president could invite Tucker and Tomi Lahren in each afternoon for a chat and let it go at that.

 

[El OchoCinco]

You went off on a tangent.

This is constitutional law 101 was in reference to the fact the President cannot remove networks from the press briefings because he does not like their message.

In case there is confusion here is the quote:

"You may not like CNN and the President may not like CNN but they cannot be removed just because you don't like their political message. This is Constitutional Law 101. FOX, CNN, etc. all as major networks have a right to be there. "

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

You went off on a tangent.

This is constitutional law 101 was in reference to the fact the President cannot remove networks from the press briefings because he does not like their message.

In case there is confusion here is the quote:

"You may not like CNN and the President may not like CNN but they cannot be removed just because you don't like their political message. This is Constitutional Law 101. FOX, CNN, etc. all as major networks have a right to be there. "

The premise of your argument is that Trump removed Acosta because he did not like his message. That is a conclusion about a question of fact that has not been established- in addition to the constitutional issues. Trump tolerates/allows many journalist there whose message he does not like, and can make a credible argument that it was Acosta's behavior rather than message.

As I have said a couple times already, I am all set either way. The most the court can do is to tell the executive branch that their rules must be clear, and made known to journalists in advance. No problem coming up with rules that require a journalist to yield the mike and the floor when the president has recognized another participant. If Acosta can follow that rule, then all is good. If he can't well....Trump just appointed the judge to DC Court of Appeals. Take it up with her when she gets there.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

You went off on a tangent.

This is constitutional law 101 was in reference to the fact the President cannot remove networks from the press briefings because he does not like their message.

In case there is confusion here is the quote:

"You may not like CNN and the President may not like CNN but they cannot be removed just because you don't like their political message. This is Constitutional Law 101. FOX, CNN, etc. all as major networks have a right to be there. "

OK, fair enough, I was sort of all over the place. So the question is, who determines who gets a pass and who gets to ask questions? If a court rules he has to let Acosta back in, will they also rule he has to let Acosta ask questions? Having a pass but not being called on ever seems rather empty. And if the answer is yes, what makes CNN or Acosta different from 100 small internet news outlets that would also like to have that privilege? Does simply being large give them enhanced First Amendment rights? That seems like an odd constitutional principle.

What theory of separation of powers allows the Judicial Branch to dictate to the Executive Branch how they will handle press access? Such access is a limited resource and simply screaming media and First Amendment doesn't answer the question.

 

[El OchoCinco]

The premise of your argument is that Trump removed Acosta because he did not like his message. That is a conclusion about a question of fact that has not been established- in addition to the constitutional issues. Trump tolerates/allows many journalist there whose message he does not like, and can make a credible argument that it was Acosta's behavior rather than message.

As I have said a couple times already, I am all set either way. The most the court can do is to tell the executive branch that their rules must be clear, and made known to journalists in advance. No problem coming up with rules that require a journalist to yield the mike and the floor when the president has recognized another participant. If Acosta can follow that rule, then all is good. If he can't well....Trump just appointed the judge to DC Court of Appeals. Take it up with her when she gets there.

Again...the statement was purely based on the law that ANY President would find it difficult to remove a whole news agency simply on the basis that he does not like their reporting. I already said that if CNN still had reporters with full access, Acosta's case would be a little weak. Not a political argument, just stating the legal viewpoint.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Again...the statement was purely based on the law that ANY President would find it difficult to remove a whole news agency simply on the basis that he does not like their reporting. I already said that if CNN still had reporters with full access, Acosta's case would be a little weak. Not a political argument, just stating the legal viewpoint.

Could he bar ISIS?