Time for a press boycott of White House press conferences

a reply to: TheRedneck

I remember when freedom of the press meant that you had the freedom to publish your ideas, even if it was just handwritten pamphlets. Not sure when the press came to mean an exclusive club separate from the masses. I wonder if the Supreme Court makes a distinction, thereby establishing a noble class of sorts?

a reply to: Ahabstar

That is exactly what I am wondering. If so, if certain classes of people have special rights prohibited to the rest of us, are we still a republic? That sounds more like an oligarchy to me.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Oh for gods sake!

Like we don't have that already????

a reply to: DBCowboy

I thought we were just heading in that direction. According to soberbacchus we may already be there. I want to know more.

TheRedneck

a reply to: DBCowboy



Nooo. Noo. No...

a reply to: TheRedneck

Yep, we are getting old and failing apart at the seams. But pretty sure we’ll end up being veterans of the New American War.

a reply to: Ahabstar

Some days, my friend, I think we already are veterans of the New American War.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: TheRedneck

I remember when freedom of the press meant that you had the freedom to publish your ideas, even if it was just handwritten pamphlets. Not sure when the press came to mean an exclusive club separate from the masses. I wonder if the Supreme Court makes a distinction, thereby establishing a noble class of sorts?

Saying what you want about the government is a right.
I'm not sure direct access to officials is. Unless they are out in public, of course.

The president can keep anyone out of the White House he wants to. Is it a good idea to do so? I think not.

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: TheRedneck

I remember when freedom of the press meant that you had the freedom to publish your ideas, even if it was just handwritten pamphlets. Not sure when the press came to mean an exclusive club separate from the masses.

What?
Exclusive club?
Separate from the masses?
Please explain.

I wonder if the Supreme Court makes a distinction, thereby establishing a noble class of sorts?

The courts have always had a very liberal view of the press as far as I am aware?

Not sure what you are imagining.

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: TheRedneck

I remember when freedom of the press meant that you had the freedom to publish your ideas, even if it was just handwritten pamphlets. Not sure when the press came to mean an exclusive club separate from the masses. I wonder if the Supreme Court makes a distinction, thereby establishing a noble class of sorts?

Saying what you want about the government is a right.
I'm not sure direct access to officials is. Unless they are out in public, of course.

The president can keep anyone out of the White House he wants to. Is it a good idea to do so? I think not.

Again. The Whitehouse is owned by the People aka "The Peoples House".
Technically it is budgeted and paid for by the National Park Service.

For Practical purposes as well as obvious security issues, the secret service can and does limit access from the general public and even for public admitted on tours they limit where they can tour.

The President is given a great deal of deference as well as privacy and security, but it is not his residence.
He can not keep anyone out of the Whitehouse without a well founded and articulated reason.

This has actually been deliberated before in the courts.

In Sherrill v. Knight (D.C. Circuit 1997),
The Nation magazine sued after a journalist was denied a White House press pass.
In that decision, the Circuit Court and lower court both said that the White House can’t just deny credentials based upon what the journalists say. [n]“..[W]e agree with appellants that arbitrary or content-based criteria for press pass issuance are prohibited under the first amendment,” the D.C. court wrote in the decision.

openjurist.org...

For example, it would be okay for Trump to do a million exclusive interviews with Fox News, and never give one to ABC. However, when it comes to press conferences and briefings that are supposed to be open to the media, the rules are different.

lawandcrime.com...

according to a 1977 decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

“White House press facilities having been made publicly available as a source of information for newsmen, the protection afforded news gathering under the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press, requires that this access not be denied arbitrarily or for less than compelling reasons,” Judge Carl E. McGowan wrote for a unanimous three-judge panel.

www.nytimes.com...

All of the above links before the Acosta hub bub.

There are other cases that have been ruled on similarly.

The courts have actually been very consistent.

a reply to: soberbacchus

Cool.

But there is a question that doesn't seem to be addressed in your quotes. Is it addressed elsewhere?

What is a "newsman?" Is there a legal definition?

So, I'm sliding into that "other" camp on this one. I guess.

Phage and I are going to put "PRESS" placards on our trilbys and gate crash. We'll let you know how our right to access the press room goes, sober.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: soberbacchus

Cool.

But there is a question that doesn't seem to be addressed in your quotes. Is it addressed elsewhere?

What is a "newsman?" Is there a legal definition?

That is the wrong question.

The courts take the most liberal definition possible.

Pretty much anyone that conveys a form of information to public.

The real question is what limits the press to the WH.

The White House Correspondence Association picks who gets to be in the room.
The President also gets to add people to the room.
The secret service also limits who they admit (including the above)

But of that group, no one can be excluded arbitrarily.
There needs to be legally demonstrable cause.

As far as the courts are concerned though? Anyone, really can consider themselves the press.

Whether they get invited by the WHCA or the WH to be screened by Sec Service for hard passes to get access to the briefing room in the WH? That depends on either the WH or WHCA.

I can't even find a court ruling where they didn't afford someone as being the "press".

originally posted by: RadioRobert
Phage and I are going to put "PRESS" placards on our trilbys and gate crash. We'll let you know how our right to access the press room goes, sober.

Go for it.

You need to get the WHCA or WH to ask the Secret Service to first run a background check and then issue the pass.

What a President CAN NOT DO is look out amongst that group and kick someone out.

Thievery (caught on film), violent drunkenness. those are the two cases where I have found the Sec Service (not POTUS) pulling hard pass press credentials.

a reply to: soberbacchus

So, according to the Court, anyone can have unlimited access to the White House (aside from security issues that is)?

It is "The Peoples' House" after all.

a reply to: soberbacchus

So I'm definitely in if I hold a security clearance? I'm so trying this!

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: soberbacchus

So, according to the Court, anyone can have unlimited access to the White House (aside from security issues that is)?

It is "The Peoples' House" after all.

Privacy, practicality, security.

Whitehouse tours happen all the time.

If you are willing to wait in line, you can take the tour.

It doesn't even cost a penny. Peoples house.

Sec Service can and will declare parts of the WH off limits for security and privacy reasons.

a reply to: soberbacchus

If you are willing to wait in line, you can take the tour.

Been there. Done that. (Funny story attached but I won't go into that.)

They didn't let us into the residence. Couldn't talk to the prez. Should I sue?
My house too. Right?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: soberbacchus

If you are willing to wait in line, you can take the tour.

Been there. Done that. (Funny story attached but I won't go into that.)

They didn't let us into the residence. Couldn't talk to the prez. Should I sue?
My house too. Right?

Security matters.

a reply to: soberbacchus

Yes. Yes it does.

Do "newsmen" have security clearances?