re: CNN, MSNow, Politico reporters were denied access to the White House despite judge’s order

quote:

---

What needs to happen for you to abandon your righteous ways and start operating under the notion that we’re at war with the left?

---

Thanks. I respect that position. I wish people who have it would say "by any means necessary," and not twist themselves into pretzels pretending otherwise.

Personally, I'm not there...yet. If we don't run things according to the Constitution and laws, what standard is there?

Reauxl has basically summed up the mindset of the board right there. Roger, SFP, you, and I tend to argue you have to stand on principle -- if you were upset conservatives were being banned from Twitter at the behest of Biden and the FBI, then you should be opposing Trump when he starts infringe on speech. But, the majority of this board just says "they are going to do it, so we have to, too." I think that leads to a descent into authoritarianism.

Glenn Greenwald and Chris Rufo tried to have a civil discussion about this. Greenwald is a free speech absolutist who calls out any efforts to curb speech. Rufo was basically like: "the electorate gave us this mandate to go full throttle in stepping on their throats and that's what we have to do while we have power."

quote:

---

Reauxl has basically summed up the mindset of the board right there. Roger, SFP, you, and I tend to argue you have to stand on principle -- if you were upset conservatives were being banned from Twitter at the behest of Biden and the FBI, then you should be opposing Trump when he starts infringe on speech. But, the majority of this board just says "they are going to do it, so we have to, too." I think that leads intro a descent into authoritarianism.

---

Thanks, Bunk. I think you summed it up well.

quote:

---

So just hold a hearing and when it's time to stand up and speak and the judge says, "Why is it that you've decided to revoke access?" the representative would say, "Because we feel like it. Revocation is at our sole discretion, judge."

What a waste of time and resources.

---

I didn't mean to give the impression that I think the government saying "w revoke wackatimesthree's divers' license because revocation is at our sole discretion" would be a legally permissible argument. In fact, I am fairly certain that would not be permissible.

a lttle bit different point - as I and others have pointed out there are differences on how something like this should be analyzed basedon where the reporters are allowed and not allowed. If the White House sets up a scheme for allowing press nto White House Grounds in an area designated for the Press - like the White House Briefing Room - then that is different from a scheme that allows reporters into the Oval Office, or the President's bedroom, or Air Force 1, etc.
The government cannot set up an area for the press specifically and then turn around and deny press access to that area due to the speech the press has engaged in. This is unlike not allowing certain members of the press into say, the President's bedroom while allowing others due to the content of their work. The latter is fine because it is the personal area of the President. Likewise, perhaps, the Oval office is an area where the Prex can discriminated based on content, given it is his area where he conducts business. But the press briefing room? Pretty certain the government cannot discriminate there on the basis of speech.