- 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: What Is There To “Win” For Progs In The Acosta Case?
Posted on 11/13/18 at 2:21 pm to victoire sécurisé
Posted on 11/13/18 at 2:21 pm to victoire sécurisé
quote:
Yes, it's the journalist's "fault" for continuing to ask questions that had POTUS ranting at the podium.
Good for Big Gov for shutting that shite down?
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.
1
Posted on 11/13/18 at 2:24 pm to NIH
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).
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.
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.
This post was edited on 11/13/18 at 2:27 pm
Posted on 11/13/18 at 2:24 pm to victoire sécurisé
quote:
Seriously, all he had to do is say, "No. Next Question."
Uhh, isn't that what he did?
Acosta refused to move on.
Posted on 11/13/18 at 2:27 pm to TBoy
quote:Hmmm, don't see anything about badgering or making your own narrative but oh well. It's quite hilarious seeing adults acting like children.
depend upon a free press to gather and disseminate information
Posted on 11/13/18 at 2:28 pm to victoire sécurisé
quote:
Conservatives used to fiercely defend the First Amendment. Now the Republican Party is going to rally around a guy who is so thin-skinned that he can't simply answer a question that he doesn't like.
Acosta wasn't asking a question, he was trying to become the story by arguing with the POTUS. He is the press. If we wants to be a pundit, then he should take his sorry arse to the newsdesk.
quote:
Seriously, all he had to do is say, "No. Next Question."
He did. Acosta wouldn't sit down. And then, when the aid tried to take his microphone, he pushed her away. And that is acceptable to you lefties.
Newsflash, political party doesn't trump common decency. It's time your side should recognize that.
Posted on 11/13/18 at 2:28 pm to victoire sécurisé
He
still
has
access
to
the
White
House.
still
has
access
to
the
White
House.
Posted on 11/13/18 at 2:28 pm to victoire sécurisé
quote:
Some people enjoy the free press afforded by the First Amendment. Some people (including the SCOTUS per Sherrill v Knight) see the WH's removal of press credentials as stifling that freedom of the press and free speech.
One more time for the stupid , no one removed any "press pass"
idiots, his permanent security pass for the WH was revoked. Completely within the Secret Service's discretion to do so
If you were not such a dumb frick you would realize that the case you cited does NOT mean the Secret Service can not at THEIR discretion deny a security pass to whomever they decide, it simply says that they must tell the person who was denied, why they were denied, which the SS did not do in the case of Sherill.
The case you cited actually acknowledges that the Secret Service has sole dominion over White House security passes, it simply allows that those denied a pass have a right to know why they were denied a pass.
Moron
Posted on 11/13/18 at 2:29 pm to rintintin
quote:
Uhh, isn't that what he did?
And then he had the Secret Service revoke his press pass. That's the 1st, 5th & APA violation he's getting sued for.
Posted on 11/13/18 at 2:29 pm to victoire sécurisé
Sherrill has to do with a journalist applying for and being denied a pass - has nothing to with bad actions leading to a revocation of an existing pass. Try again.
Posted on 11/13/18 at 2:29 pm to TBoy
quote:
Actually, my rights and your rights under the first amendment have been stifled as we depend upon a free press to gather and disseminate information.
How does removing Acosta, not CNN's, press pass stifle free press. Explain that. Acosta acted like a jackass, therefore, the jackass can do his reporting from outside the gate.
I really am curious how you will try and say that this is stifling free press. Something tells me, you are too scared to answer that question though.
Posted on 11/13/18 at 2:29 pm to victoire sécurisé
quote:Just his hard pass, Jimmy still gets in.
And then he had the Secret Service revoke his press pass
Posted on 11/13/18 at 2:29 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
I guarantee you he(i use that lightly) pulled that off of DU or some such site 
Posted on 11/13/18 at 2:30 pm to victoire sécurisé
What good is it going to do him having his press pass back if he never gets called on again? Is that still a win for you? Just a warm body at the press conference for the #resistance?
Posted on 11/13/18 at 2:30 pm to victoire sécurisé
quote:
Seriously, all he had to do is say, "No. Next Question."
Are you a moron? This is a serious question. Have you actually watched the video? The intern was reaching for the microphone because there president has already said something along that line multiple times.
I'm all for freedom of the press and all for free speech. I love free speech so much I will fight for someone's right to say something I disagree with and find disgusting.
However during those press meetings there needs to be rules so everyone gets questions answered. Acosta broke those rules. I agree that Acosta was an extremely rude individual.
He didn't block cnn from attending the press conferences. They were free to send someone else.
Long story short is if Acosta had come out and apologized and even said something like in my zeal to get at the truth, I crossed the line and for that I am sorry, I bet the whole deal would've been over.
Instead cnn decided to sue. Let's see how this goes. And he still doesn't have his pass. Hubris, thy name is cnn or Jim Acosta.
In another more Texan way of saying things, you mess with a bull you get the horns.
Posted on 11/13/18 at 2:30 pm to BeeFense5
Muh 4th estate
Posted on 11/13/18 at 2:31 pm to victoire sécurisé
now your just being obtuse he answered his question and when Acosta didn't like his answer he clarified then because Trump zinged him Acosta wanted another question which was answered any normal person would have realized the conversation was over but not ol jimmie boy, he dug his hole now he'll either cover it to hide the smell by apologizing for his actions or live with his shite
Posted on 11/13/18 at 2:31 pm to victoire sécurisé
quote:
Some people enjoy the free press afforded by the First Amendment. Some people (including the SCOTUS per Sherrill v Knight) see the WH's removal of press credentials as stifling that freedom of the press and free speech.
Posted on 11/13/18 at 2:31 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:
Moron
Triggered much?
Constitutional scholars disagree with your assessment, enough to the point that a news network would have the balls to sue a sitting POTUS. Maybe they should have consulted with your internet badassery before filing.
Posted on 11/13/18 at 2:32 pm to victoire sécurisé
quote:
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)
OK, how does that prevent CNN from disseminating information? Explain to me how removing one assholes credential prevents the entirety of CNN from finding a replacement? They didn't revoke CNN's press pass. Just Acosta, because he's an insufferable jackass with zero decorum or manners.
Posted on 11/13/18 at 2:32 pm to victoire sécurisé
quote:
the balls to sue a sitting POTUS
Page 2 of 6
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News