Trump bans news outlets. What happened to the First Amendment?

APLMAN99
Posts
12843
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Tualatin, OR, USA
Fantasy
Edited Date/Time 7 hours ago

Trump has barred CNN, Politico, and MS NOW from the White House over alleged 'fake news'.

The White House is the government. The First Amendment exists to protect us from government interference with speech and the press.

Nobody’s claiming reporters deserve unlimited access, they obviously aren't guaranteed access into classified topics or in military planning. But reasonable access rules and punishing unfavorable coverage are two very different things.

Constitutional protections can’t depend on whose coverage a President likes, can it?

Poll

How do you view these bans?

Choices
1
9
|
Reese95w
Posts
273
Joined
2/7/2011
Location
Kent, WA, USA
1 day ago

Just after Vladimir Putin was elected President of Russia in March of  2000 he started shutting down the then independent broadcasting and print media and putting them under state control.  It got worse in the 2012 to 2021 time period leading up to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

Trump is trying the same shit now with the news media.

4
5
SEEMEFIRST
Posts
14168
Joined
8/21/2006
Location
Arlington, TX, USA
1 day ago

What's it got to do with the 1st?

They're still free to spread thier BS, just not from the comfort of the White House.

5
9
1 day ago

 I think Trump and his lawyers know it will not last. And its a bit of red meat for him to throw to his followers. That courts will most likely overturn and it will only be in effect a short time. That just happens to be right now leading up to some elections that he is worried about republicans not doing well in. Sure looks like he's working on something, he has done more to undermine the confidence in election results than just about any other single person. Seems very unamerican and it really only hurts the country.  

   I worry that Trump will use the settlements from civil lawsuits  he had against those channels  and them settling as some sort of proof of slander taking place.  I would be surprised if those settlements had any wording in them that said they agreed that they had slandered them. But I would guess that is what he's going to use to try and back up that decision.  If he even tries, so much that he does is only for the headlines and then will often just make up the rest. 

 

 If this holds, I truly hope that no other presidents in the future  do something similar .  Anybody trying to restrict the news  is doing stuff they do not want reported. Trump is far from the first President to have been looked into so deeply. He's just the first with so much that has been found with all the deep detective dives .  

3
2
byke
Posts
3161
Joined
8/12/2015
Location
Auburn, CA, USA
1 day ago

Obviously pissing on the 1a, but people like it, so they don't care.

4

The Shop

vet323
Posts
3632
Joined
7/31/2010
Location
Lead, SD, USA
1 day ago

Legal, but definitely not cool.

Just like it wasn't cool when Obama froze out FOX, and it wasn't cool when he put FOX, CBS, and AP reporters under surveillance, tapping their phones and emails. 

But, I suppose that was ok with the Apple Man.

8
4
soggy
Posts
9005
Joined
12/3/2018
Location
USA
1 day ago
SEEMEFIRST wrote:

What's it got to do with the 1st?

They're still free to spread thier BS, just not from the comfort of the White House.

freedom of the press is also part of it.

1
5
APLMAN99
Posts
12843
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Tualatin, OR, USA
Fantasy
1 day ago Edited Date/Time 1 day ago
SEEMEFIRST wrote:

What's it got to do with the 1st?

They're still free to spread thier BS, just not from the comfort of the White House.

image 3802

6
1 day ago

If FELD can do it, Trump can do it.

4
APLMAN99
Posts
12843
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Tualatin, OR, USA
Fantasy
1 day ago
vet323 wrote:
Legal, but definitely not cool.Just like it wasn't cool when Obama froze out FOX, and it wasn't cool when he put FOX, CBS, and AP reporters...

Legal, but definitely not cool.

Just like it wasn't cool when Obama froze out FOX, and it wasn't cool when he put FOX, CBS, and AP reporters under surveillance, tapping their phones and emails. 

But, I suppose that was ok with the Apple Man.

Where did I say it was okay when Obama did it? Criticizing Trump doesn’t mean I give Obama a pass.

And saying “legal” doesn’t make it legal. Lawyers who specialize in press freedom are calling these bans unconstitutional.

My position is simple, a president shouldn’t use government power to punish news outlets for coverage he doesn’t like. That applies whether his name is Trump or Obama or any other President.

7
5
vet323
Posts
3632
Joined
7/31/2010
Location
Lead, SD, USA
1 day ago Edited Date/Time 1 day ago

Ok, but the chances of this happening are very slim. It'll get knocked down just like it has when previous administrations tried to exclude outlets from tye briefing room.

Edit: My point is that this isn't unprecedented and isn't worth clutching your pearls over.

1
3
whethefakawe
Posts
268
Joined
10/14/2021
Location
Scottsdale, AZ, USA
1 day ago

Why so upset? 

What kind of moron watches TV news? 

6
Chance1216
Posts
8947
Joined
4/1/2018
Location
Carson, CA, USA
1 day ago

Who went riding today? IMG 6949 3

7
3
borg
Posts
7031
Joined
12/7/2009
Location
Long Beach, CA, USA
23 hours ago

Cable news is just as much a clusterfuck as the Trump administration. Who fucking cares what they do to each other?

3
3
disbanded
Posts
6984
Joined
8/26/2007
Location
Evergreen, CO, USA
22 hours ago
Chance1216 wrote:
Who went riding today?

Who went riding today? IMG 6949 3

I did!

1000013098
3
Chance1216
Posts
8947
Joined
4/1/2018
Location
Carson, CA, USA
20 hours ago
Chance1216 wrote:
Who went riding today?

Who went riding today? IMG 6949 3

disbanded wrote:
I did!

I did!

1000013098

Yeah buddy!! 

1
Robgvx
Posts
4098
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
GB
19 hours ago
IMG 1137 2.jpeg?VersionId=zSz8VXPI8jPUKlt
4
12 hours ago
Robgvx wrote:
IMG 1137 2.jpeg?VersionId=zSz8VXPI8jPUKlt

Don’t you just love it, when some ignorant ass, Limey, starts talking about the, “Bill of Rights”? 

People in your fucking country are being arrested for MEMEs, Clown! 

 

8
9 hours ago
Robgvx wrote:
IMG 1137 2.jpeg?VersionId=zSz8VXPI8jPUKlt
MoogenKen wrote:
Don’t you just love it, when some ignorant ass, Limey, starts talking about the, “Bill of Rights”? People in your fucking country are being arrested for MEMEs...

Don’t you just love it, when some ignorant ass, Limey, starts talking about the, “Bill of Rights”? 

People in your fucking country are being arrested for MEMEs, Clown! 

 

The little passive aggressive midget, must have hit the wrong button. 

4
APLMAN99
Posts
12843
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Tualatin, OR, USA
Fantasy
8 hours ago
Robgvx wrote:
IMG 1137 2.jpeg?VersionId=zSz8VXPI8jPUKlt
MoogenKen wrote:
Don’t you just love it, when some ignorant ass, Limey, starts talking about the, “Bill of Rights”? People in your fucking country are being arrested for MEMEs...

Don’t you just love it, when some ignorant ass, Limey, starts talking about the, “Bill of Rights”? 

People in your fucking country are being arrested for MEMEs, Clown! 

 

Is he wrong, mutt?  Your reply doesn’t address the issue, just a verbal diatribe against the person posting. If he’s wrong, you wouldn’t need to lash out about where he lives. 

3
8 hours ago
Robgvx wrote:
IMG 1137 2.jpeg?VersionId=zSz8VXPI8jPUKlt
MoogenKen wrote:
Don’t you just love it, when some ignorant ass, Limey, starts talking about the, “Bill of Rights”? People in your fucking country are being arrested for MEMEs...

Don’t you just love it, when some ignorant ass, Limey, starts talking about the, “Bill of Rights”? 

People in your fucking country are being arrested for MEMEs, Clown! 

 

APLMAN99 wrote:
Is he wrong, mutt?  Your reply doesn’t address the issue, just a verbal diatribe against the person posting. If he’s wrong, you wouldn’t need to lash...

Is he wrong, mutt?  Your reply doesn’t address the issue, just a verbal diatribe against the person posting. If he’s wrong, you wouldn’t need to lash out about where he lives. 

This is not unconstitutional, whatsoever. 

3
APLMAN99
Posts
12843
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Tualatin, OR, USA
Fantasy
8 hours ago
MoogenKen wrote:
Don’t you just love it, when some ignorant ass, Limey, starts talking about the, “Bill of Rights”? People in your fucking country are being arrested for MEMEs...

Don’t you just love it, when some ignorant ass, Limey, starts talking about the, “Bill of Rights”? 

People in your fucking country are being arrested for MEMEs, Clown! 

 

APLMAN99 wrote:
Is he wrong, mutt?  Your reply doesn’t address the issue, just a verbal diatribe against the person posting. If he’s wrong, you wouldn’t need to lash...

Is he wrong, mutt?  Your reply doesn’t address the issue, just a verbal diatribe against the person posting. If he’s wrong, you wouldn’t need to lash out about where he lives. 

MoogenKen wrote:

This is not unconstitutional, whatsoever. 

You may believe that, but the majority of constitutional attorneys commenting on it disagree with you……

1
2
APLMAN99
Posts
12843
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Tualatin, OR, USA
Fantasy
8 hours ago
vet323 wrote:
Ok, but the chances of this happening are very slim. It'll get knocked down just like it has when previous administrations tried to exclude outlets from...

Ok, but the chances of this happening are very slim. It'll get knocked down just like it has when previous administrations tried to exclude outlets from tye briefing room.

Edit: My point is that this isn't unprecedented and isn't worth clutching your pearls over.

If it’s legal, like you claimed, why would it get ‘knocked down’?  

1
1
Gworm
Posts
2833
Joined
4/5/2017
Location
Monett, MO, USA
8 hours ago
MoogenKen wrote:
Don’t you just love it, when some ignorant ass, Limey, starts talking about the, “Bill of Rights”? People in your fucking country are being arrested for MEMEs...

Don’t you just love it, when some ignorant ass, Limey, starts talking about the, “Bill of Rights”? 

People in your fucking country are being arrested for MEMEs, Clown! 

 

APLMAN99 wrote:
Is he wrong, mutt?  Your reply doesn’t address the issue, just a verbal diatribe against the person posting. If he’s wrong, you wouldn’t need to lash...

Is he wrong, mutt?  Your reply doesn’t address the issue, just a verbal diatribe against the person posting. If he’s wrong, you wouldn’t need to lash out about where he lives. 

MoogenKen wrote:

This is not unconstitutional, whatsoever. 

I have a lot of respect for Rob, for what he has done on the track, and I loved the video he did a while back on Namur. I dreamed of riding that track when I was young. I just don’t agree with him politically, although I think he’s a good person.  And that’s ok. 

i do think he is mistaken on this, though. 
Read it and tell me where it says anyone gets any access they want to the Whitehouse, press or not.  They aren’t stopping them from publishing or broadcasting anything.That would violate the 1st amendment. But nobody automatically has unfettered access. It has to be earned, as does the right to keep it. 

I will say, I think it’s not the best look for the administration, but I also probably wouldn’t let those jackasses in. 

I believe that’s what Seemefirst was alluding to above. 

1
APLMAN99
Posts
12843
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Tualatin, OR, USA
Fantasy
8 hours ago
APLMAN99 wrote:
Is he wrong, mutt?  Your reply doesn’t address the issue, just a verbal diatribe against the person posting. If he’s wrong, you wouldn’t need to lash...

Is he wrong, mutt?  Your reply doesn’t address the issue, just a verbal diatribe against the person posting. If he’s wrong, you wouldn’t need to lash out about where he lives. 

MoogenKen wrote:

This is not unconstitutional, whatsoever. 

Gworm wrote:
I have a lot of respect for Rob, for what he has done on the track, and I loved the video he did a while back...

I have a lot of respect for Rob, for what he has done on the track, and I loved the video he did a while back on Namur. I dreamed of riding that track when I was young. I just don’t agree with him politically, although I think he’s a good person.  And that’s ok. 

i do think he is mistaken on this, though. 
Read it and tell me where it says anyone gets any access they want to the Whitehouse, press or not.  They aren’t stopping them from publishing or broadcasting anything.That would violate the 1st amendment. But nobody automatically has unfettered access. It has to be earned, as does the right to keep it. 

I will say, I think it’s not the best look for the administration, but I also probably wouldn’t let those jackasses in. 

I believe that’s what Seemefirst was alluding to above. 

Nobody is arguing for “unfettered access.” That’s a straw man argument.

The issue is whether the government can revoke existing press access because it dislikes the reporting. The First Amendment protects against government retaliation, too. ‘They can still publish’ doesn’t settle that.

Access can certainly depend on security requirements and reasonable conduct rules. It shouldn’t have to be ‘earned’ by giving the president favorable coverage.

‘I wouldn’t let those jackasses in’ works fine for your own personal house. The White House is a government institution, and the president’s personal dislikes aren’t the standard for constitutional rights.


 

1
1
Gworm
Posts
2833
Joined
4/5/2017
Location
Monett, MO, USA
7 hours ago
MoogenKen wrote:

This is not unconstitutional, whatsoever. 

Gworm wrote:
I have a lot of respect for Rob, for what he has done on the track, and I loved the video he did a while back...

I have a lot of respect for Rob, for what he has done on the track, and I loved the video he did a while back on Namur. I dreamed of riding that track when I was young. I just don’t agree with him politically, although I think he’s a good person.  And that’s ok. 

i do think he is mistaken on this, though. 
Read it and tell me where it says anyone gets any access they want to the Whitehouse, press or not.  They aren’t stopping them from publishing or broadcasting anything.That would violate the 1st amendment. But nobody automatically has unfettered access. It has to be earned, as does the right to keep it. 

I will say, I think it’s not the best look for the administration, but I also probably wouldn’t let those jackasses in. 

I believe that’s what Seemefirst was alluding to above. 

APLMAN99 wrote:
Nobody is arguing for “unfettered access.” That’s a straw man argument.The issue is whether the government can revoke existing press access because it dislikes the reporting...

Nobody is arguing for “unfettered access.” That’s a straw man argument.

The issue is whether the government can revoke existing press access because it dislikes the reporting. The First Amendment protects against government retaliation, too. ‘They can still publish’ doesn’t settle that.

Access can certainly depend on security requirements and reasonable conduct rules. It shouldn’t have to be ‘earned’ by giving the president favorable coverage.

‘I wouldn’t let those jackasses in’ works fine for your own personal house. The White House is a government institution, and the president’s personal dislikes aren’t the standard for constitutional rights.


 

Where does it say they have a right to access? 
 

It may not be fair, but I’m not sure it’s unconstitutional to block them. 

1
TeamGreen
Posts
37586
Joined
11/25/2008
Location
Thru-out, CA, USA
7 hours ago
APLMAN99 wrote:
Trump has barred CNN, Politico, and MS NOW from the White House over alleged 'fake news'.The White House is the government. The First Amendment exists to...

Trump has barred CNN, Politico, and MS NOW from the White House over alleged 'fake news'.

The White House is the government. The First Amendment exists to protect us from government interference with speech and the press.

Nobody’s claiming reporters deserve unlimited access, they obviously aren't guaranteed access into classified topics or in military planning. But reasonable access rules and punishing unfavorable coverage are two very different things.

Constitutional protections can’t depend on whose coverage a President likes, can it?

It’s been called “The People’s House”…

He can ban whatever or whoever…but, I think the courts have ruled on this already…? Didn’t he pull shit shit in his 1st term? Didn’t he try to ban the lil’ ol’ lady from one of the majors…in his 1st term? 

Meh. Whatever. It won’t last.

But, it sure as hell gets people talkin’…

Definitive Disclaimer: anyone who reads ANYTHING into this beyond what’s simply been said…? “Don’t”

Yes, “Don’t” is plagiarized…it’s a Biden thing. 🤣

Robgvx
Posts
4098
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
GB
7 hours ago
APLMAN99 wrote:
Is he wrong, mutt?  Your reply doesn’t address the issue, just a verbal diatribe against the person posting. If he’s wrong, you wouldn’t need to lash...

Is he wrong, mutt?  Your reply doesn’t address the issue, just a verbal diatribe against the person posting. If he’s wrong, you wouldn’t need to lash out about where he lives. 

MoogenKen wrote:

This is not unconstitutional, whatsoever. 

Gworm wrote:
I have a lot of respect for Rob, for what he has done on the track, and I loved the video he did a while back...

I have a lot of respect for Rob, for what he has done on the track, and I loved the video he did a while back on Namur. I dreamed of riding that track when I was young. I just don’t agree with him politically, although I think he’s a good person.  And that’s ok. 

i do think he is mistaken on this, though. 
Read it and tell me where it says anyone gets any access they want to the Whitehouse, press or not.  They aren’t stopping them from publishing or broadcasting anything.That would violate the 1st amendment. But nobody automatically has unfettered access. It has to be earned, as does the right to keep it. 

I will say, I think it’s not the best look for the administration, but I also probably wouldn’t let those jackasses in. 

I believe that’s what Seemefirst was alluding to above. 

Mistaken on what? I just posted a screenshot of your constitution. 

Post a reply to: Trump bans news outlets. What happened to the First Amendment?

This forum thread has been locked.

The Latest