3 ms·

'“Under the First Amendment, if the Government opens its doors to some journalists — be it to the Oval Office, the East Room, or elsewher — it cannot then shut

'“Under the First Amendment, if the Government opens its doors to some journalists — be it to the Oval Office, the East Room, or elsewher — it cannot then shut those doors to other journalists because of their viewpoints,” McFadden wrote.' So, where is the limit then? Surely if a group of journalists had some very extreme viewpoints on race or religions that would be more of an issue for McFadden?

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
The question can be turned around: what is the limit to the WH's ability to ban journalists for their speech if they can ban a journalist for this speech? > Surely if a group of journalists had some very extreme viewpoints on race or religions that would be more of an issue for McFadden? I do not see a reason to believe this.
outer_web 2y ago
https://apnews.com/article/trump-gulf-mexico-america-ap-first-amendment-4304433d73ad496f5308c9666cbe8e11 https://apnews.com/article/trump-gulf-mexico-america-ap-firs... Has a nice explainer for how the WH press pool works.
- jaredwiener 2y ago
  We also publish WH pool reports here, if interested: https://www.forth.news/whpool https://www.forth.news/whpool
- legitster 2y ago
  > The relationship between the president and the press is intended to be adversarial. That’s essential for knowing what the president and his administration are — or are not — doing in the United States’ name with taxpayer money. This is a great way of putting it.
jaredwiener 2y ago
Presumably not. The First Amendment is specifically intended for this -- because who decides what is an extreme viewpoint? Imagine if a newspaper endorsed the President's opponent in the next election -- could they then be barred from all official events? They could not be granted access in the first place, but once they are, the government cannot use that access to retaliate.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
ajross 2y ago
There is plenty of room for whataboutism. But what won them this case is that Trump himself said that the AP was banned because of what they were printing in their stories. That's walking across a bright line boundary where "Wait why is it OK to exclude racists?" isn't.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago

The question can be turned around: what is the limit to the WH's ability to ban journalists for their speech if they can ban a journalist for this speech? > Surely if a group of journalists had some very extreme viewpoints on race or religions that would be more of an issue for McFadden? I do not see a reason to believe this.

outer_web 2y ago

https://apnews.com/article/trump-gulf-mexico-america-ap-first-amendment-4304433d73ad496f5308c9666cbe8e11 https://apnews.com/article/trump-gulf-mexico-america-ap-firs... Has a nice explainer for how the WH press pool works.

jaredwiener 2y ago
We also publish WH pool reports here, if interested: https://www.forth.news/whpool https://www.forth.news/whpool
legitster 2y ago
> The relationship between the president and the press is intended to be adversarial. That’s essential for knowing what the president and his administration are — or are not — doing in the United States’ name with taxpayer money. This is a great way of putting it.

jaredwiener 2y ago

Presumably not. The First Amendment is specifically intended for this -- because who decides what is an extreme viewpoint? Imagine if a newspaper endorsed the President's opponent in the next election -- could they then be barred from all official events? They could not be granted access in the first place, but once they are, the government cannot use that access to retaliate.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

ajross 2y ago

There is plenty of room for whataboutism. But what won them this case is that Trump himself said that the AP was banned because of what they were printing in their stories. That's walking across a bright line boundary where "Wait why is it OK to exclude racists?" isn't.