- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Federal judge rules White House's AP ban unconstitutional for 'viewpoint discrimination'
Posted on 4/9/25 at 10:12 am
Posted on 4/9/25 at 10:12 am
Even if this topic was already posted, I'm posting this from a different angle.
Has this set a precedent? If it's unconstitutional to shut out people because of their viewpoints for calling the Gulf of America the Gulf of Mexico, then why is it OK to shut out people because of their viewpoints calling a born male who says he's a she, "he" or "him" or "sir"? Because doing that will certainly get you shut out, suspended, or possibly fired.
Fox News
quote:
The Associated Press was banned from Oval Office events after it refused to use the term 'Gulf of America'
The White House violated the Constitution for barring the Associated Press from Oval Office events, according to a federal judge’s ruling Tuesday.
U.S. District Judge Trevor N. McFadden, a Trump appointee, said that the White House acted against the First Amendment, which prohibits discrimination based on viewpoints, by blocking the longtime publication’s access over its refusal to use the term "Gulf of America."
"The Government offers no other plausible explanation for its treatment of the AP. The Constitution forbids viewpoint discrimination, even in a nonpublic forum like the Oval Office," McFadden wrote.
"Under the First Amendment, if the Government opens its doors to some journalists—be it to the Oval Office, the East Room, or elsewhere—it cannot then shut those doors to other journalists because of their viewpoints," he added. "The Constitution requires no less."
Has this set a precedent? If it's unconstitutional to shut out people because of their viewpoints for calling the Gulf of America the Gulf of Mexico, then why is it OK to shut out people because of their viewpoints calling a born male who says he's a she, "he" or "him" or "sir"? Because doing that will certainly get you shut out, suspended, or possibly fired.
Fox News
18
Posted on 4/9/25 at 10:14 am to SouthEndzoneTiger
It was my viewpoint not to get vaccinated. Where was this federal judge's concern for that?
Posted on 4/9/25 at 10:21 am to member12
quote:
It was my viewpoint not to get vaccinated. Where was this federal judge's concern for that?
Agreed. And this judge was appointed by Trump. And I kind of agree with him. I think Trump may have overstepped on this one. But hey, what's good for the goose, right? Vaccine choice, pronoun usage, the name of a body of water, etc.
Posted on 4/9/25 at 10:25 am to SouthEndzoneTiger
No one has a right to ask questions from the President in the Oval Office. No one. It's a privilege.
Posted on 4/9/25 at 10:25 am to SouthEndzoneTiger
quote:
Has this set a precedent?
I think the precedent was set under Nixon.
However, I don't believe it ever made its way to the US Supreme Court.
Posted on 4/9/25 at 10:30 am to Barstools
quote:
No one has a right to ask questions from the President in the Oval Office. No one. It's a privilege.
I understand what you are saying, but apparently, according to the ruling...
quote:
"Under the First Amendment, if the Government opens its doors to some journalists—be it to the Oval Office, the East Room, or elsewhere—it cannot then shut those doors to other journalists because of their viewpoints," he added. "The Constitution requires no less."
Posted on 4/9/25 at 10:31 am to BigJim
Welcome AP back, to the back row, and never take a question from them.
Posted on 4/9/25 at 10:31 am to SouthEndzoneTiger
I'm a journalist.
Where is my seat?
Where is my seat?
Posted on 4/9/25 at 10:33 am to SouthEndzoneTiger
quote:
Federal judge rules White House's AP ban unconstitutional for 'viewpoint discrimination'
“Viewpoint discrimination” is now a constitutional right? By that standard, every mainstream media news outlet would be unconstitutional.
ETA: Interestingly, by making this ruling isn’t this far left whackjob judge acknowledging and admitting that the AP is just another far left-wing whackjob propaganda machine, masquerading as journalists? If they were just another balanced news organization with “real” journalists, then they wouldn’t really have a “viewpoint.”
This post was edited on 4/9/25 at 10:42 am
Posted on 4/9/25 at 10:33 am to SouthEndzoneTiger
lol @ the reasoning which goes against everything we’ve been force fed for the past 4 shitty years
Posted on 4/9/25 at 10:35 am to SouthEndzoneTiger
quote:
I understand what you are saying, but apparently, according to the ruling...
I’ll give you $10,000 if you can go ask trump a question in the Oval Office in the next week. You have freedom of press under the first amendment, go on ….
Posted on 4/9/25 at 10:38 am to SouthEndzoneTiger
quote:
Agreed. And this judge was appointed by Trump. And I kind of agree with him. I think Trump may have overstepped on this one. But hey, what's good for the goose, right? Vaccine choice, pronoun usage, the name of a body of water, etc.
same here
Posted on 4/9/25 at 10:39 am to Clyde Tipton
It’s funny how this is an issue. The last admin did not have press conferences.
Posted on 4/9/25 at 10:40 am to SouthEndzoneTiger
Just remember that any power we give to this administration is power given to the next.
Posted on 4/9/25 at 10:41 am to SouthEndzoneTiger
Now do what Big Tech did to those of us who weren't going to take a stolen election & forced compliance with an experimental injection lying down.
Posted on 4/9/25 at 10:41 am to SouthEndzoneTiger
quote:
"Under the First Amendment, if the Government opens its doors to some journalists—be it to the Oval Office, the East Room, or elsewhere—it cannot then shut those doors to other journalists because of their viewpoints," he added. "The Constitution requires no less."
*does quick Google search*
somewhere in neighborhood of 45,000 people are "journalists" in America.
can't tell any of them "no"
so we now need to move all Press Conferences to a football field somewhere to make sure we have enough room for them to all fit.
Posted on 4/9/25 at 10:45 am to momentoftruth87
quote:
I’ll give you $10,000 if you can go ask trump a question in the Oval Office in the next week. You have freedom of press under the first amendment, go on ….
I am certainly no expert on any of this, but I would assume that a journalist, in order to receive credentials to get into press conferences at the White House has to jump through many hoops in order to obtain that. I would imagine that thousands upon thousands apply and never get in. I would also assume that this ruling refers to locking out an otherwise credentialed journalist for 'viewpoint discrimination'. Also, it appears the AP was only locked out of the Oval Office and Air Force One, not the daily White House briefings. So yeah, your 10K is safe.
Posted on 4/9/25 at 10:48 am to Nutriaitch
quote:
somewhere in neighborhood of 45,000 people are "journalists" in America.
can't tell any of them "no"
so we now need to move all Press Conferences to a football field somewhere to make sure we have enough room for them to all fit.
Eh, maybe I'm dead wrong about this, but see my opinion about this in the post above this.
Posted on 4/9/25 at 10:48 am to SouthEndzoneTiger
Let the fockers back in and never let them ask a question.
Posted on 4/9/25 at 10:51 am to omegaman66
quote:
Let the fockers back in and never let them ask a question.
This!
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News