- 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
re: Federal judge rules White House's AP ban unconstitutional for 'viewpoint discrimination'
Posted on 4/9/25 at 11:36 am to SammyTiger
Posted on 4/9/25 at 11:36 am to SammyTiger
quote:
Businesses aren’t the government.
The 1st amendment applies to the government.
I think you need to read my post again.
0
Posted on 4/9/25 at 11:45 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."
bullshite.
The Constitution says, "Did you bring enough to share with the whole class?"
I think not.
Posted on 4/9/25 at 11:45 am to SouthEndzoneTiger
Viewpoint discrimination is nothing new. Nothing in this order said the government can’t ban media from the white house. You just can’t single one media outlet out because you don’t like their viewpoint. Also doesn’t mean that you have to answer their questions.
You can go back to Boos V Berry, a SCOTUS case from 1988 and R.A.V. vs City of St Paul, another SCOTUS case from 1992 to see older viewpoint cases.
Everyone in here saying well now every person that says they’re a journalist gets to go to Oval Office are incorrect. The problem with the governments case in this instance is that they openly admitted the reason for the ban was not agreeing with the APs viewpoint. They didn’t say we have limited room and were swapping y’all out for X. That would have been a much better legal reason. When they openly said we’re banning you over the GOA issue, it opened them up to this ruling.
You can go back to Boos V Berry, a SCOTUS case from 1988 and R.A.V. vs City of St Paul, another SCOTUS case from 1992 to see older viewpoint cases.
Everyone in here saying well now every person that says they’re a journalist gets to go to Oval Office are incorrect. The problem with the governments case in this instance is that they openly admitted the reason for the ban was not agreeing with the APs viewpoint. They didn’t say we have limited room and were swapping y’all out for X. That would have been a much better legal reason. When they openly said we’re banning you over the GOA issue, it opened them up to this ruling.
This post was edited on 4/9/25 at 11:52 am
Posted on 4/9/25 at 11:48 am to DavidTheGnome
quote:
nobody has a right to ask the president questions
please show me that
point to where in the constitution it says a specific news org must have access to the president inside the white house. you make it sound like he kicked everyone out
Posted on 4/9/25 at 11:53 am to DawgCountry
Kicking everyone out would actually be easier to justify than what they did.
Posted on 4/9/25 at 11:53 am to Flats
quote:
This judge seems to be putting forth the argument that political beliefs should be a protected class just like religious beliefs.
No he is not.
He is saying you cannot treat a press wire service differently than you treat other press wire services because of their speech. Simple as that. There is no need to bring in "protected classes" - it is a straight free speech/freedom of the press case.
Posted on 4/9/25 at 12:02 pm to TechBullDawg
Posted on 4/9/25 at 12:06 pm to JimEverett
quote:
He is saying you cannot treat a press wire service differently than you treat other press wire services because of their speech.
Because of their political speech.
They don't have to accept everybody with press credentials, so we already know it's fine to discriminate against the press, it just has to be for legal reasons. The judge is saying that their politics can't be one of those reasons, which sounds like he's treating it as a protected class.
I'm not a lawyer, I'm just saying how it comes across on the surface. The WH isn't obligated to give them a platform, it just can't pick & choose based on politics. I'm not obligated to open an ice cream shop, but if I do I can't discriminate against protected classes.
Posted on 4/9/25 at 12:13 pm 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."
How ridiculous. This judge is a moron.
So the first amendment guarantees the right to have access to political press conferences? Wow.
So using that standard, I and every other American also have the right to attend WH press conferences. They should hold them in a stadium.
This post was edited on 4/9/25 at 12:15 pm
Posted on 4/9/25 at 12:15 pm to SquatchDawg
quote:
How ridiculous. This judge is a moron.
So the first amendment guarantees the right to have access to political press conferences? Wow.
Read what you posted again. All the way to the end.
Posted on 4/9/25 at 12:18 pm to JimEverett
You read it.
Then tell me how barring access to a press conference limits speech.
Then tell me how barring access to a press conference limits speech.
Posted on 4/9/25 at 12:25 pm 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.
It's a decent ruling. The administration screwed up when they said it was not being allowed because of the AP not calling it the Gulf of America. They should've just replaced them with another group to allow others to participate or some such reason.
Posted on 4/9/25 at 12:27 pm to SquatchDawg
The White House is barring access because of speech. They have stated they are limiting AP's access because the AP refuses to use the designation "Gulf of America" in their reporting.
That is the definition of limiting speech.
That is the definition of limiting speech.
Posted on 4/9/25 at 12:57 pm to JimEverett
quote:
The White House is barring access because of speech.
Which in no way prevents the AP from using The Gulf of Mexico as much as it wants in all of its publications. How has their freedom of speech been infringed?
In what way does not granting them the privilege of direct WH access preventing them from using the Gulf of Mexico whenever they want?
This post was edited on 4/9/25 at 12:59 pm
Posted on 4/9/25 at 1:02 pm to SquatchDawg
quote:
Which in no way prevents the AP from using The Gulf of Mexico as much as it wants in all of its publications. How has their freedom of speech been infringed?
In what way does not granting them the privilege of direct WH access preventing them from using the Gulf of Mexico whenever they want?
The government is treating them differently because of their speech.
Suppose you get audited every year and the IRS says they are auditing you because you publicly express support for Trump. They are not stopping you from publicly supporting Trump. But it might make you think about quieting down. And it serves as a warning to others - do not publicly support Trump or else you will be audited.
Similar thing going on here.
Posted on 4/9/25 at 1:22 pm to JimEverett
I'm an attorney (not one who specializes in con law...but I did take a free speech class in law school) and JimEverett is basically the only person in this thread that seems to understand (1) how, why and when the First Amendment applies to government actions and (2) that the First Amendment restricts government actions and not ones by private actors (such as employers and businesses).
Courts are very sensitive to a government attempting to punish someone based on their political speech. It's basically the bedrock of our Constitution.
Courts are very sensitive to a government attempting to punish someone based on their political speech. It's basically the bedrock of our Constitution.
Posted on 4/9/25 at 1:23 pm to SquatchDawg
quote:
How ridiculous. This judge is a moron.
So the first amendment guarantees the right to have access to political press conferences? Wow.
No, it says you can't kick someone out because of a differing political viewpoint.
quote:
So using that standard, I and every other American also have the right to attend WH press conferences. They should hold them in a stadium.
Not necessary, thousands of journalists are not allowed, for other reasons, but NOT because they have a differing political viewpoint.
Posted on 4/9/25 at 1:47 pm to SouthEndzoneTiger
viewpoint discrimination' is now unconstitutional? Lmao. Holy cow that's rich!
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News