Replies (1)

• @ByteJunk@lemmy.world 2026-09-19 07:41

  You’re a fucking moron. Like, an actual, genuine, idiot. There’s two lessons here for you. First one is don’t talk about things you know nothing about, if you need a memorable phrase for it to stick in your head, here’s one: “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt”. The second lesson is that you’re solely responsible for your own education. If you’re as ignorant as a rock, that’s on you. Stop dragging the rest of humanity down, start using that brain in useful ways or do the rest of us a favor and shut the fuck up, you’re a burden. Now as for the specific context here, on if banning specific journalists from the White House is a first amendment violation: most definitely yes. The first aspect to it is what’s known as the principle of “Viewpoint Discrimination”. This is very well established by the Supreme Court: when the government suppresses or punishes a message just because it disagrees with the speaker’s point of view, it crosses the line into viewpoint discrimination. Extending this to the White House, from the moment you have a “public” event with an accreditation process, and you then proceed to ban access because of the “unfavourable coverage” (and this is a direct quote), this is clear cut viewpoint discrimination. The second aspect is the argument that White House press conferences are akin to designated public forums. While the President is not legally required to hold press conferences or call on specific reporters, if a public forum is established for the press corps, the administration cannot selectively expel certain journalists as a tool for censorship or intimidation. The third aspect is existing case law and past rulings: Sherrill v. Knight (1977): The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the White House cannot deny press credentials arbitrarily. It established that the White House must have clear, published, and consistent standards for granting or denying access, and must provide due process. CNN v. Trump (2018): When the White House revoked Jim Acosta’s “hard pass” following a… rough press conference, CNN sued. A federal judge granted a temporary restraining order forcing the administration to restore his access, citing First Amendment free speech and Fifth Amendment due process violations. The White House folded.

  Open ##4862927