re: What Is There To “Win” For Progs In The Acosta Case?

Washington-based journalists, whereas most of the White House itself, and press facilities in particular, have not been made available to the general public. White House press facilities having been made publicly available as a source of information for newsmen,20 the protection afforded newsgathering under the first amendment guarantee of freedom of the press, see Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 681, 707, 92 S. Ct. 2646, 33 L. Ed. 2d 626 (1972); Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 829-35, 94 S. Ct. 2800, 41 L. Ed. 2d 495 (1974), requires that this access not be denied arbitrarily or for less than compelling reasons. See Southeastern Promotions v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546, 95 S. Ct. 1239, 43 L. Ed. 2d 448 (1975); Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 58 S. Ct. 666, 82 L. Ed. 949 (1938).

quote:

---

You're either for decorum or you are not. Acosta behaved like a child and had his press passed revoked. At no point has his speech been "silenced". No where in the first amendment do you have a right to a White House Press Pass. You've yet to explain otherwise - not that I expect you too.

---

Sherrill v Knight 1977. It's settled SCOTUS precedent.

Even acting like a child doesn't excuse the Secret Service to take away your press credentials.