4 ms·

"freedom of expression isn't freedom from consequences". Freedom of expression is about whether the government will use state powers to arrest or silence you. B

"freedom of expression isn't freedom from consequences". Freedom of expression is about whether the government will use state powers to arrest or silence you. Being uninvited to a gathering is not that.

beart 2y ago
It's not as simple as you state. Courts have, in the past, had something to say about The White House revoking press passes without due process. The very first hit searching "supreme court decisions white house press passes" yields the following, and I leave it to you to search further if it pleases you. https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/publications/youraba/2018/december-2018/legal-fact-check--can-the-white-house-pull-a-reporters-credentia/ https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/publications/yourab...
- otterley 2y ago
  Unfortunately it's an old site, and the deeper links within are broken. There aren't any court rulings yet that are directly on point with respect to the question of access. However, if the Government is conditioning press access based on viewpoint, that's immediately suspect, and I would expect the courts to apply strict scrutiny to it.
  - beart 2y ago
    Apologies, I definitely put the minimum effort into that response. But as you stated, the point is government control over the press tends to raise constitutional questions.
null0pointer 2y ago
You are confusing the principle and western liberal value of freedom of speech with the first amendment, which is an implementation of the value.
MrJohz 2y ago
This was not a private gathering, though. This was a public conference held by the President of the United States. That is the government choosing who is allowed to speak and who isn't. I'm by no means a free speech absolutist, but there are certain things that are huge red flags for freedom of press and freedom of expression. The government moving against press that is critical of it is dangerous. We should always be wary when that happens.
spiderfarmer 2y ago
It’s exactly that.

beart 2y ago

It's not as simple as you state. Courts have, in the past, had something to say about The White House revoking press passes without due process. The very first hit searching "supreme court decisions white house press passes" yields the following, and I leave it to you to search further if it pleases you. https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/publications/youraba/2018/december-2018/legal-fact-check--can-the-white-house-pull-a-reporters-credentia/ https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/publications/yourab...

otterley 2y ago
Unfortunately it's an old site, and the deeper links within are broken. There aren't any court rulings yet that are directly on point with respect to the question of access. However, if the Government is conditioning press access based on viewpoint, that's immediately suspect, and I would expect the courts to apply strict scrutiny to it.
- beart 2y ago
  Apologies, I definitely put the minimum effort into that response. But as you stated, the point is government control over the press tends to raise constitutional questions.

null0pointer 2y ago

You are confusing the principle and western liberal value of freedom of speech with the first amendment, which is an implementation of the value.

MrJohz 2y ago

This was not a private gathering, though. This was a public conference held by the President of the United States. That is the government choosing who is allowed to speak and who isn't. I'm by no means a free speech absolutist, but there are certain things that are huge red flags for freedom of press and freedom of expression. The government moving against press that is critical of it is dangerous. We should always be wary when that happens.

spiderfarmer 2y ago

It’s exactly that.