"All he has to do is lie about his reasons, and then it is legal?"
(1) There's some confusion in Matt's post mixing "[legally] can" with "should". The First Amendment says: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press".
But the president isn't Congress. He's not muzzling CNN et al from reporting at all, which would be asserting 'law' where Congress doesn't, as opposed to merely White House regulations. The White House (and Congress and Supreme Court) of course don't allow press in all kinds of meetings, and no one cries foul. So it's the spirit of the thing here regarding public discourse.
(2) But then in Matt's quote of the Supreme Court, it seems either the Court or Matt's assumption goes outside its expected boundaries by asserting: "a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected interest, especially his interest in freedom of speech."
I didn't know that American speech freedom is actually this giant legal umbrella that fully covers a cultural norm?
Not quite. If by “it” you mean single out a handful of news orgs. for exile from press briefings, no he can’t just do it by lying. If on the other hand he wanted to keep them out by ending WH press briefings for all, he could. Or if he wanted to give them the boot by revoking their press credentials on national security grounds he could try that, though that would be a loser when he doesn’t do it to Al Jazeera. Or he could make their lives difficult like Obama and Biden have done with problem journalists. But even lying would not get him passed the 1st Amendment protection against genuinely “abridging” the freedom of the press, especially on a selective, partisan basis.
Yup, Zayphar. This is similar to college admissions. They got themselves in trouble for coming right out and saying, "We don't want white men, and don't particularly like white women, but we like black men and women and brown men and women, and there are entirely too many Asians here." So they don't say those things out loud anymore, but still do end runs to get the outcomes they want. Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
That's been said since Shakespeare's day, and with reason.
Indeed, this is part of Trump's appeal - that he won't wrap his actions in the hypocrisy necessary, which does put him here and elsewhere on the wrong side of the law. And I am not more in favor of lawbreaking in the POTUS than in anyone.
But while we do need to call Trump on all his BS (and there is far more skirting of actual laws this time around than last, alas), we do need to keep perspective, and awareness of the overall context of politicians and bureaucrats skirting the spirit of laws by lying.
Matt's still missing the point - Trump want's the "who censored more and got censored more battle" to rage, not bubble, right into the mid-terms.
Matt had it right the first time - the issue is censorship. The mainstream media is currently killing a story that is all over the Polish press. Many may have noticed, btw, that the AfD soared in the weekend elections in Germany while the part of Germany's leader got less than 5 percent in one two state elections - the background issues - wasting money, de-industrialization, immigration, and high energy prices.
Poland' prime minister Tusk announced in the Polish parliament on September 17, that Ukrainian authorities shared the new monthly Ukrainian casualty numbers. These numbers 27,000 Ukrainian killed and wounded have not been disputed by Ukraine. The significance of a top European political leader and Ukraine war hawk releasing numbers that destroy Ukraine's public claims would be a significant stand-alone story. But that would complicate funding this four-year debacle into it's fifth year.
Via Grok - The main Polish media reports that cover Tusk’s 17 September Sejm remarks, including the 27,000 monthly figure and his citation of Ukrainian partners:
Let's reduce that to 15,000 x 50 months by next April - 750,000 killed and wounded just on the Ukraine side alone? How is this not a crisis? Knock a third off that number and we're still looking at half a million dead and wounded Ukrainians. WTF?
What is the press? Is it only the corporate big guys? Isn’t Trump the first president to allow bloggers to ask questions. This isn’t a free press issue it’s a protected privilege issue that corporate pretty people are butt-hurt about.
I wonder if it ever occurred to those who want him to act like every other president that they shouldn't have tried to overthrow him, bankrupt him, jail him and kill him? If he's a monster, they created that monster
Sorry but unless there are consequences for contanstly lying, the legacy press will just continue to lie. I saw that fat fool, Erin "Battleaxe" Burnett on CNN last night screeching about some illegal being shot by ICE. Guess what? I could care less if they shoot them all. They are in our country illegally thanks to Democrats. The party of lies and treason. So what if these liars are excluded from press conferences. They're a scourge and nobody with a firing neuron watches them anyway.
If you want to criticize Trump for doing something stupid, criticize him for meeting with Mamdani, instead of deporting his sorry little commie ass back to Kampala.
Perception is reality and no matter what, it's a bad look to deny a voice to anyone. That shows closed-mindedness, which too many people in this country suffer from.
Trump is only following all the administrations before him that he doesn't care about the rules or the Constitution. It's the "shystem" and Trump IS the deep state now.
And the founder who predicted it all was Brutus, who sadly got so memory-holed that no one has read his arguments about why creating a strong central government would become corrupt. Who was Brutus – other than that fellow who plotted against Julius Caesar?
And I understand why he was memory-holed bc being closed minded (or ignorant, as most Americans are) to his arguments is a form of cognitive dissonance. Our 2nd Constitution did create the mighty empire that created the American Dream. Immigrants from around the world can tell us their horror stories of life that doesn’t have a Constitution like ours. It was good until…1798 when Adams started locking up his opponents for sedition? (And what we actually cherish now is our Bill of Rights – and we have that only because of the Anti-Federalists like Brutus who would not back down.)
So, how are the balance of powers working out, now? We are not even free to decide to opt out of Social Security if we would rather use those funds to increase our own retirement fund (and doing the math for 40 years making 40K a year at 10%, we’d end up with 1.2 million dollars or 50K just in dividends) or free to decide that we do not want substandard medical care through Medicare. We are forced to pay up, or else…
Et tu Matt. Do not need to read you if all you are going to do is parrot legacy media. The banished "reporters" are nothing but part of the unofficial wing of the DNC and as such have no special privileges.
Wow, now "what happened to you Matt" is coming from conservatives too! Keep up the good work, Matt. Your consistency on free speech is a hobgoblin to unprincipled minds on every side.
Nice quotes but the first amendment applies to everyone. The government can't pick and choose who gets to speak/report. We will all await a court ruling.
Did you even read Matt's articles, you silly goose?
Yes, that's true, except when you single out specific parties based on content or political inclination. Then it becomes a constitutional issue. If he had closed the press office, no one could have said a word. But that's not what happened.
Your comment captures the entire issue. “News” organizations should NOT be associated with a political party. Even Fox News criticizes him and brings on voices from the left. As I said in another comment to Matt, these outlets continue to repeat already debunked “statements” from Trump as current fact. That’s a disturbing issue, and frankly, they’ve lost all legitimacy. That WH briefing room is small. Their seats should be reserved for actual, ethical journalists. This isn’t constitutional. It’s limiting dangerous propaganda, which is exactly what MSNOW, CNN, and Politico spread daily. I recognize it’s a slippery slope, but it should happen in this case. He’s not limiting what they can say, how they report, or anything remotely close to it. He’s just barring them from that room.
That said, he’ll likely lose in court, because it’s DC and those courts care about the Democrat narrative over adhering to the constitution (not that this issue is constitutional in any way, because their FOS is not being limited).
Where were all these free press warriors when Biden would hold a rare appearance and only allowed a handful of preselected questions to be asked by a preselected supporters? He was so brain dead he had to write down the names of the six people he was allowed to ask
You know, I hate the comparative argument. "Boy, if you think this is bad, you should have seen what so and so did." How about sticking to the topic at hand. Biden is gone; this is Trump's problem.
I think Matt you can make an argument that he does have that right, and legally it would be up to interpretation. For instance if you interpretted it this way. By calling them fake news, he is removing their press passes not because of their speech but because they are in his mind not press? What is the qualifying determination of who is press? I assume I can not get a press badge. Is there a guild, a licensure of reporterness, did they take an exam, is there a requirement that you must meet to be press?
So, he can do it, but he can't tell the truth about why he is doing it.
All he has to do is lie about his reasons, and then it is legal?
That may be the Law, but if so, then the law is an ass.
That would make him a Democrat.
"All he has to do is lie about his reasons, and then it is legal?"
(1) There's some confusion in Matt's post mixing "[legally] can" with "should". The First Amendment says: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press".
But the president isn't Congress. He's not muzzling CNN et al from reporting at all, which would be asserting 'law' where Congress doesn't, as opposed to merely White House regulations. The White House (and Congress and Supreme Court) of course don't allow press in all kinds of meetings, and no one cries foul. So it's the spirit of the thing here regarding public discourse.
(2) But then in Matt's quote of the Supreme Court, it seems either the Court or Matt's assumption goes outside its expected boundaries by asserting: "a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected interest, especially his interest in freedom of speech."
I didn't know that American speech freedom is actually this giant legal umbrella that fully covers a cultural norm?
Don't get me wrong, I'm a free speech absolutist who thinks the First Amendment is too narrow.
Not quite. If by “it” you mean single out a handful of news orgs. for exile from press briefings, no he can’t just do it by lying. If on the other hand he wanted to keep them out by ending WH press briefings for all, he could. Or if he wanted to give them the boot by revoking their press credentials on national security grounds he could try that, though that would be a loser when he doesn’t do it to Al Jazeera. Or he could make their lives difficult like Obama and Biden have done with problem journalists. But even lying would not get him passed the 1st Amendment protection against genuinely “abridging” the freedom of the press, especially on a selective, partisan basis.
Yup, Zayphar. This is similar to college admissions. They got themselves in trouble for coming right out and saying, "We don't want white men, and don't particularly like white women, but we like black men and women and brown men and women, and there are entirely too many Asians here." So they don't say those things out loud anymore, but still do end runs to get the outcomes they want. Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
That's been said since Shakespeare's day, and with reason.
Indeed, this is part of Trump's appeal - that he won't wrap his actions in the hypocrisy necessary, which does put him here and elsewhere on the wrong side of the law. And I am not more in favor of lawbreaking in the POTUS than in anyone.
But while we do need to call Trump on all his BS (and there is far more skirting of actual laws this time around than last, alas), we do need to keep perspective, and awareness of the overall context of politicians and bureaucrats skirting the spirit of laws by lying.
Matt's still missing the point - Trump want's the "who censored more and got censored more battle" to rage, not bubble, right into the mid-terms.
Matt had it right the first time - the issue is censorship. The mainstream media is currently killing a story that is all over the Polish press. Many may have noticed, btw, that the AfD soared in the weekend elections in Germany while the part of Germany's leader got less than 5 percent in one two state elections - the background issues - wasting money, de-industrialization, immigration, and high energy prices.
Poland' prime minister Tusk announced in the Polish parliament on September 17, that Ukrainian authorities shared the new monthly Ukrainian casualty numbers. These numbers 27,000 Ukrainian killed and wounded have not been disputed by Ukraine. The significance of a top European political leader and Ukraine war hawk releasing numbers that destroy Ukraine's public claims would be a significant stand-alone story. But that would complicate funding this four-year debacle into it's fifth year.
Via Grok - The main Polish media reports that cover Tusk’s 17 September Sejm remarks, including the 27,000 monthly figure and his citation of Ukrainian partners:
Polskie Radio: https://www.polskieradio.pl/399/7977/artykul/3732653,pilne-wystapienie-premiera-tuska-w-planie-rosji-hybrydowe-uderzenia-na-panstwa-wspierajace-ukraine
Gazeta.pl / Wiadomości: https://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/swiat/7,198077,33032522,tusk-z-sejmowej-mownicy-naglasnia-sekret-ukrainy-straty-w-ludziach.html
Interia Wydarzenia: https://wydarzenia.interia.pl/kraj/news-tusk-podal-najbardziej-prawdopodobny-scenariusz-hybrydowe-ud,nId,23545301
Dziennik Narodowy: https://dzienniknarodowy.pl/tusk-ukraina-traci-27-tys-zabitych-i-rannych-miesiecznie/
And in English - https://www.polskieradio.pl/395/7784/Artykul/3732674,polands-tusk-warns-of-possible-russian-strikes-on-ukraines-allies
Let's reduce that to 15,000 x 50 months by next April - 750,000 killed and wounded just on the Ukraine side alone? How is this not a crisis? Knock a third off that number and we're still looking at half a million dead and wounded Ukrainians. WTF?
What is the press? Is it only the corporate big guys? Isn’t Trump the first president to allow bloggers to ask questions. This isn’t a free press issue it’s a protected privilege issue that corporate pretty people are butt-hurt about.
I wonder if it ever occurred to those who want him to act like every other president that they shouldn't have tried to overthrow him, bankrupt him, jail him and kill him? If he's a monster, they created that monster
To quote Ben Shapiro, "Trump is a mud monster. He's made of mud. If you throw mud at him, he just gets bigger."
In other words, expect him to function within the boundaries of the law.
Sorry but unless there are consequences for contanstly lying, the legacy press will just continue to lie. I saw that fat fool, Erin "Battleaxe" Burnett on CNN last night screeching about some illegal being shot by ICE. Guess what? I could care less if they shoot them all. They are in our country illegally thanks to Democrats. The party of lies and treason. So what if these liars are excluded from press conferences. They're a scourge and nobody with a firing neuron watches them anyway.
Ironically, his problem is that he doesn't lie enough
🎯🎯🎯🎯
Welll, WaPo is boycotting the Whitehouse now. That will show Trump who's boss.
😂🤣😆
Now, about Sydney Sweeney ...
"No matter how hot she is, some guy out there somewhere is fed up with her shit."
Thank you for helping me hijack this "First Amendment" conversation.
I'm too obsessed with Sara Smith to care about Sydney Sweeney.
If you want to criticize Trump for doing something stupid, criticize him for meeting with Mamdani, instead of deporting his sorry little commie ass back to Kampala.
Perception is reality and no matter what, it's a bad look to deny a voice to anyone. That shows closed-mindedness, which too many people in this country suffer from.
Trump is only following all the administrations before him that he doesn't care about the rules or the Constitution. It's the "shystem" and Trump IS the deep state now.
And the founder who predicted it all was Brutus, who sadly got so memory-holed that no one has read his arguments about why creating a strong central government would become corrupt. Who was Brutus – other than that fellow who plotted against Julius Caesar?
And I understand why he was memory-holed bc being closed minded (or ignorant, as most Americans are) to his arguments is a form of cognitive dissonance. Our 2nd Constitution did create the mighty empire that created the American Dream. Immigrants from around the world can tell us their horror stories of life that doesn’t have a Constitution like ours. It was good until…1798 when Adams started locking up his opponents for sedition? (And what we actually cherish now is our Bill of Rights – and we have that only because of the Anti-Federalists like Brutus who would not back down.)
So, how are the balance of powers working out, now? We are not even free to decide to opt out of Social Security if we would rather use those funds to increase our own retirement fund (and doing the math for 40 years making 40K a year at 10%, we’d end up with 1.2 million dollars or 50K just in dividends) or free to decide that we do not want substandard medical care through Medicare. We are forced to pay up, or else…
Our current reality is proving that Brutus was right about everything: https://lizlasorte.substack.com/p/brutus-was-right-about-everything?r=76q58
The Donald loves trolling. Especially the MSM. He knows this will get shot down. He just doesn’t gaf.
Et tu Matt. Do not need to read you if all you are going to do is parrot legacy media. The banished "reporters" are nothing but part of the unofficial wing of the DNC and as such have no special privileges.
Wow, now "what happened to you Matt" is coming from conservatives too! Keep up the good work, Matt. Your consistency on free speech is a hobgoblin to unprincipled minds on every side.
How did Trump infringe on these "reporters" free speech? I'll wait.
Nice quotes but the first amendment applies to everyone. The government can't pick and choose who gets to speak/report. We will all await a court ruling.
Did you even read Matt's articles, you silly goose?
What happened to the president who signed an executive order protecting the First Amendment and Free Speech, within days of taking office?
WH access is a privilege not a right. This has nothing to do with the First Amendment.
Yes, that's true, except when you single out specific parties based on content or political inclination. Then it becomes a constitutional issue. If he had closed the press office, no one could have said a word. But that's not what happened.
“ If he had closed the press office, no one could have said a word.”
Of course they would, genocide would be the cry.
Your comment captures the entire issue. “News” organizations should NOT be associated with a political party. Even Fox News criticizes him and brings on voices from the left. As I said in another comment to Matt, these outlets continue to repeat already debunked “statements” from Trump as current fact. That’s a disturbing issue, and frankly, they’ve lost all legitimacy. That WH briefing room is small. Their seats should be reserved for actual, ethical journalists. This isn’t constitutional. It’s limiting dangerous propaganda, which is exactly what MSNOW, CNN, and Politico spread daily. I recognize it’s a slippery slope, but it should happen in this case. He’s not limiting what they can say, how they report, or anything remotely close to it. He’s just barring them from that room.
That said, he’ll likely lose in court, because it’s DC and those courts care about the Democrat narrative over adhering to the constitution (not that this issue is constitutional in any way, because their FOS is not being limited).
Where were all these free press warriors when Biden would hold a rare appearance and only allowed a handful of preselected questions to be asked by a preselected supporters? He was so brain dead he had to write down the names of the six people he was allowed to ask
You know, I hate the comparative argument. "Boy, if you think this is bad, you should have seen what so and so did." How about sticking to the topic at hand. Biden is gone; this is Trump's problem.
I think Matt you can make an argument that he does have that right, and legally it would be up to interpretation. For instance if you interpretted it this way. By calling them fake news, he is removing their press passes not because of their speech but because they are in his mind not press? What is the qualifying determination of who is press? I assume I can not get a press badge. Is there a guild, a licensure of reporterness, did they take an exam, is there a requirement that you must meet to be press?
Trump is a "free speech for me but not for thee" kind of guy. In the hot air he unleashes, he himself is a major cause of global warming.
B.....S
He’s 80 years old. He just doesn’t GAF anymore.