Trump

[Vekseid]

Because the United States takes the freedom of speech and the press extremely seriously:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Press conferences are not propaganda operations. They are for communicating with the press, and the government does not have the right to shut someone out on a whim.

To say nothing of using an edited video as evidence of it.

Right now the First Amendment is sacrosanct in the US. That may change, but Trump would need to appoint a minimum of 3 new Supreme Court Justices for it to get reinterpreted again. Probably more.

[Tolvo]

It's also why we are seeing press across political lines actually supporting CNN's claims in the lawsuit, because even those who support Trump could realize the severity of this and the danger it could present to the freedom of the press as a whole.

[gaggedLouise]

I don't see the full logic behind this. If someone is acting in a way that very clearly puts the press conference on hold, and in a way that is inappropriate for a press conference, then that should be all that is needed for a removal of press credentials. No one individual has the right to speak to the president, much less when that individual is acting in a disruptive or inappropriate manner. I get the argument about 'due process' here, but lets be real, you don't need due process to decide "yea this guy is being an ass, we don't want him here anymore'. You don't need a trial to decide that.

Trump's notion of what is a disruptive or uncouth way of talking to him by a journalist doing his/her job is probably rather different from where most other people would draw the line for such a situation (and yes I mean: interactions between the president or some other top executive and a journalist, not between a journalist and a criminal or any John Blow).

Trump has been dismissive of the press and the news media and trying to put them down ever since he entered office, if not before. He simoply doesn't want anyone but himself and his trusted supporters to have a hand in shaping the story about him, he doesn't tolerate any independent second opinions, or critical discussion, of his activities. And he routinely tosses up blatant falsehoods and demands that they be reported as the actual, true news.

[TheGlyphstone]

It's also why we are seeing press across political lines actually supporting CNN's claims in the lawsuit, because even those who support Trump could realize the severity of this and the danger it could present to the freedom of the press as a whole.

Is Fox breaking ranks too?

[Tolvo]

Fox actually did very early on.

[Oniya]

Is Fox breaking ranks too?

I actually caught a headline on Mr. Oniya's computer that Fox supported CNN in the lawsuit.

[Callie Del Noire]

I actually caught a headline on Mr. Oniya's computer that Fox supported CNN in the lawsuit.

Fox is very aware that eventually the President will be a lot less right leaning and when that happens, the current president's actions will set precedent. IF they don't work to prevent it now..the boot will be applied to their ass in the future.

[RedPhoenix]

Although you can find almost no mention of it on Fox News.

[Tilt]

I don't see the full logic behind this. If someone is acting in a way that very clearly puts the press conference on hold, and in a way that is inappropriate for a press conference, then that should be all that is needed for a removal of press credentials. No one individual has the right to speak to the president, much less when that individual is acting in a disruptive or inappropriate manner. I get the argument about 'due process' here, but lets be real, you don't need due process to decide "yea this guy is being an ass, we don't want him here anymore'. You don't need a trial to decide that.

In all honesty, I think it's really hard to say that he behaved inappropriately. I went back to rewatch the video just to be sure that I wasn't taking a hard stance based on my own political views, and even with a more critical viewing it was Trump who escalated at every opportunity. He mocked Acosta within seconds of the question starting, refused to answer the inquiries, and got increasingly belligerent as the question went on. All the while Acosta was behaving respectfully and just trying to ask simple questions. Which is his job. It's not his job to cater to the ego of the president.

The issue that I have is that in a functional society, press should be able to ask tough questions. We need the press to, in order to hold our social systems accountable, which is why fascist regimes so often pull stunts like the one Trump did. Removing the rights of a free press is one of the first steps of a rising fascist government and it's what Trump has been trying to do since taking office. The Nazi's did it as well, in a shockingly similar fashion. They attacked the "lügenpresse", or lying press, and equated them to rich Jewish people just trying to deceive the people. It's very similar to Trump's "Fake news" tirades and the chants of his more right-wing followers, some of whom actually use lügenpresse as an insult to CNN or other news organizations.

If we give the president the unilateral right to decide who in the press gets to be present when he talks, especially THIS president, we lose any ability to trust press conferences at all. Because those who cover him will have lost the ability to be critical or honest. Because if they do anything he dislikes, he can ruin their career. You could argue he should be able to do so in this case because Acosta was acting out of turn, which I would disagree with, but he still needs to be held in check because the next person he strips of access might not have done anything wrong. By ignoring Acosta, the government is essentially setting a very dangerous precedence.

[Oniya]

Although you can find almost no mention of it on Fox News.

This one was posted two days ago:  https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/fox-news-stands-with-cnn-passes-for-working-white-house-journalists-should-never-be-weaponized

And this one today:  https://www.foxnews.com/politics/judge-orders-white-house-returns-press-pass-to-cnns-jim-acosta

Of note is the fact that Fox declared they were going to file an 'amicus brief' with the court.  In broad terms, amicus briefs are legal documents filed in appellate court cases by non-litigants with a strong interest in the subject matter. The briefs advise the court of relevant, additional information or arguments that the court might wish to consider.   Fox News would have a strong interest, as they would not want to invite the possibility of a future president barring their access to the White House.

Also of note is that Acosta's pass has been restored under a temporary restraining order.  Further hearings will take place, but the injunction only lasts for 14 days (CNN can petition to make it permanent, and will probably do so.)

[Tolvo]

In general people tend to be very protective of constitutional based rights of American citizens even when they are their enemies. And even if someone is your enemy or on a different political side, targeting of press is considered a very terrifying thing to most people. See a thing is Trump targeting people that many don't consider "True Citizens" he can often get away with but when it is happening to "True American Citizens" it will scare the hell out of even people who support him.

[Tilt]

In general people tend to be very protective of constitutional based rights of American citizens even when they are their enemies. And even if someone is your enemy or on a different political side, targeting of press is considered a very terrifying thing to most people. See a thing is Trump targeting people that many don't consider "True Citizens" he can often get away with but when it is happening to "True American Citizens" it will scare the hell out of even people who support him.

That's true, though it is terrifying just how narrow the definition of "true citizen" is becoming.

[legomaster00156]

Well, for now, "wealthy, popular, white male journalist born and living in the United States" is still protected as a True Citizen.

[Tolvo]

Basically the less of a citizen someone is to the populace and the more of a security risk they are considered, the less people will care when bad things happen to them. This has been true for quite a while. Even Obama is very guilty of this, consider how over 80% of people killed in Drone Strikes under his presidency were not the target and were just unrelated civilians, many of which were children, and how while there were people who cared the general populace didn't like try to overthrow Obama over it, it becomes pretty clear. We see the stronger push back and protests and things when it effects people who are considered citizens more. And if it happens to people who are 100% not citizens and are in far away countries quite a lot of Americans do not care.

[Tolvo]

Hmm a correction, I'm looking at the numbers on other reports. The ones I read were from long ago, and I'm starting to wonder if they meant but didn't specify they were talking about specific incidents rather than broadly. Since what I can find currently puts the numbers more around 20%. So I'm thinking I had a bad source for the previous number or that they were a bit misleading in how they presented it.

[TheGlyphstone]

I'll be very amused if Fox and Friends comments on the case with glowing Pro-Trump talk about how it was totally reasonable for him to strip Acosta of access, while their parent network is quietly supporting CNN in court.

[Tolvo]

https://twitter.com/TheContemptor/status/1063888277516820480

Well our president is on the scene of the California fires to tell us that, if we raked the forests more maybe this wouldn't have happened.

[gaggedLouise]

I'll be very amused if Fox and Friends comments on the case with glowing Pro-Trump talk about how it was totally reasonable for him to strip Acosta of access, while their parent network is quietly supporting CNN in court.

I think that's far from implausible, really. Could well happen.

[Sara Nilsson]

Love that reply to trumps tweet.

Also.. now I am sad.

[Tolvo]

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1064176731681116160

Trying to find the full interview, but uh, I guess Trump feels that Navy Seals who fought Osama Bin Laden and Hussein are bad people you should ignore if they are critical of Trump.

[Lustful Bride]

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1064176731681116160

Trying to find the full interview, but uh, I guess Trump feels that Navy Seals who fought Osama Bin Laden and Hussein are bad people you should ignore if they are critical of Trump.

……...that is some near 40K levels of Heresy.

[Tolvo]

Like I don't like military hero worship, but like, going "Well you could have killed Osama Bin Laden sooner" is definitely not a stance I'd personally take ever. Even people critical of the US military are not gonna agree with what he said. Also dismissing someone that many would could a war hero because he is a "Hillary Fan" is um, not a good look.

[gaggedLouise]

I'll be very amused if Fox and Friends comments on the case with glowing Pro-Trump talk about how it was totally reasonable for him to strip Acosta of access, while their parent network is quietly supporting CNN in court.

CNN actually had adiscussion this afternoon with a guy from Fox (I think he was from the actual tv division, not one of the higher-up business managers) and it laid open this conflict in a very funny way. They were discussing Trump's ban on Acosta and the court appeal, and the Fox guy said: yes, on principle Fox will support the rights of other tv networks to have their journalists do their work. The CNN guy said, like, "right, so then you and Fox will support our right to ask the president whatever q

[TheGlyphstone]

I think you got cut off there. ;D

[gaggedLouise]

Yep, there was a keyboard glitch allright. I hope one of the Purples will remove that one in time - here's the complete take:

I'll be very amused if Fox and Friends comments on the case with glowing Pro-Trump talk about how it was totally reasonable for him to strip Acosta of access, while their parent network is quietly supporting CNN in court.

CNN actually had a live discussion this afternoon with a guy from Fox (I think he was from the actual tv division, not one of the higher-up business managers) and it laid open this conflict in a very funny way. They were discussing Trump's ban on Acosta and the court appeal, and the Fox guy said: yes, on principle Fox will support the rights of other tv networks to have their journalists do their work. The CNN guy said, like, "right, so then you and Fox will support our right to ask the president whatever questions we find appropriate, and, and..." /obviously making a declaration/. The Fox guy looked *extremely* uncomfortable, as if he had had to swallow some bad medicine, but finally said, roughly, "well, we'll support the well-understood rights of Mr.Acosta because he's one of the press corps at the White House, but uh, hang on, I am not saying that the President has to accept *any* and every question he is asked by some journalist. And by the way" (turning to the offensive) "when Obama said that a Fox journalist had been going past the limits of decorum, and blocked him from the press briefings, *your* network supported our position, remember?". Now, the CNN anchor is looking rather deflated... ;D