CNN- Jim Acosta's Press Pass Restored

[dismal]

taxpayer funded room

He's also the decider of that.

That statement is the exact opposite of the constitution. Objective standards exist for press passes, not one person's opinion.

aa

My copy of the Constitution does not have that. As previously mentioned, the only aspects of the Constitution that I have seen invoked in this case are:

1) If the government decides to issue press passes, the government may not engage in viewpoint discrimination when it does so
2) If the government revokes a press pass, it must provide an explanation and an opportunity to respond (i.e., "due process".)

There is nothing in the Constitution or in case precedent that says the government can't revoke a press pass for behavior it finds unacceptable. And, presumably, it will now do so.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Why would something like that be in the Constitution as opposed to in case law after that was written? A Constitution would be a weird place to find something referencing something like that.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

That statement is the exact opposite of the constitution. Objective standards exist for press passes, not one person's opinion.

aa

My copy of the Constitution does not have that. As previously mentioned, the only aspects of the Constitution that I have seen invoked in this case are:

1) If the government decides to issue press passes, the government may not engage in viewpoint discrimination when it does so
2) If the government revokes a press pass, it must provide an explanation and an opportunity to respond (i.e., "due process".)

There is nothing in the Constitution or in case precedent that says the government can't revoke a press pass for behavior it finds unacceptable. And, presumably, it will now do so.

The alleged unacceptable behavior is exaggerated. Besides that, the cause of the behavior (which was not unacceptable) was that he was being targeted for removal of his microphone due to viewpoint discrimination, i.e. asking questions the President did not like. The due process provided is with the courts which undid the Dictator's move.

Now that your objections are addressed, you now know your President is trying to remove the freedom of a press that vehemently disagrees with him while asking questions and that's why he always calls all of them "enemy of the people."

 

[dismal]

That statement is the exact opposite of the constitution. Objective standards exist for press passes, not one person's opinion.

aa

My copy of the Constitution does not have that. As previously mentioned, the only aspects of the Constitution that I have seen invoked in this case are:

1) If the government decides to issue press passes, the government may not engage in viewpoint discrimination when it does so
2) If the government revokes a press pass, it must provide an explanation and an opportunity to respond (i.e., "due process".)

There is nothing in the Constitution or in case precedent that says the government can't revoke a press pass for behavior it finds unacceptable. And, presumably, it will now do so.

The alleged unacceptable behavior is exaggerated.

Sorry, you aren't the decider.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The alleged unacceptable behavior is exaggerated.

Sorry, you aren't the decider.

No, objectivity is.

You saw the video that was faked but you are more interested in being political than objective.

 

[crazyfingers]

I suppose it's too much to expect that these new rules might also prohibit name calling and other such jackassery by Trump towards members of the press.

 

[dismal]

I suppose it's too much to expect that these new rules might also prohibit name calling and other such jackassery by Trump towards members of the press.

If you like, you can host a press conference (freedom of the press and all) and kick Trump out for his jackassery.

 

[crazyfingers]

I suppose it's too much to expect that these new rules might also prohibit name calling and other such jackassery by Trump towards members of the press.

If you like, you can host a press conference (freedom of the press and all) and kick Trump out for his jackassery.

If you like you can continue to defend the jackass.

 

[dismal]

I suppose it's too much to expect that these new rules might also prohibit name calling and other such jackassery by Trump towards members of the press.

If you like, you can host a press conference (freedom of the press and all) and kick Trump out for his jackassery.

If you like you can continue to defend the jackass.

I'm not defending the guy. I'm correcting the absurd beliefs of the people who got him elected. Well, trying.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I'm correcting the absurd beliefs of the people who got him elected.

Please provide evidence you are correcting your and other conservatives' absurd beliefs.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

That statement is the exact opposite of the constitution. Objective standards exist for press passes, not one person's opinion.

aa

My copy of the Constitution does not have that. As previously mentioned, the only aspects of the Constitution that I have seen invoked in this case are:

1) If the government decides to issue press passes, the government may not engage in viewpoint discrimination when it does so
2) If the government revokes a press pass, it must provide an explanation and an opportunity to respond (i.e., "due process".)

There is nothing in the Constitution or in case precedent that says the government can't revoke a press pass for behavior it finds unacceptable. And, presumably, it will now do so.

Your copy of the constitution states that the president of the United States is the sole adjudicator on when, where, and how often 'freedom' of the press applies? Weird. This is the dictatorial system you prefer?

aa

 

[Gun Nut]

That statement is the exact opposite of the constitution. Objective standards exist for press passes, not one person's opinion.

aa

My copy of the Constitution does not have that. As previously mentioned, the only aspects of the Constitution that I have seen invoked in this case are:

1) If the government decides to issue press passes, the government may not engage in viewpoint discrimination when it does so
2) If the government revokes a press pass, it must provide an explanation and an opportunity to respond (i.e., "due process".)

There is nothing in the Constitution or in case precedent that says the government can't revoke a press pass for behavior it finds unacceptable. And, presumably, it will now do so.

The alleged unacceptable behavior is exaggerated. Besides that, the cause of the behavior (which was not unacceptable) was that he was being targeted for removal of his microphone due to viewpoint discrimination, i.e. asking questions the President did not like. The due process provided is with the courts which undid the Dictator's move.

Now that your objections are addressed, you now know your President is trying to remove the freedom of a press that vehemently disagrees with him while asking questions and that's why he always calls all of them "enemy of the people."

It was exaggerated... yes. Take a lesson from that, actually.

He was not, however, targeted for the NATURE of the question, but the NUMBER of questions. He finished asking his question, and then when he asked if he could ask another question (and another and another and another? how many???) Trump said that he had to move on to another reporter... Trump was being fair and Acosta wanted to dominate the floor.

In the video I saw, as I now remember it (I could be wrong here - correct me if so), Acosta never got his second question out. We don't even know what he was going to ask. It could not possibly been viewpoint discrimination... it was simply what was on the face of it.... "You asked your question, it was answered, whose next... and they shut him down for being a dick about not getting the opportunity to ask any number of questions and take any amount of the limited time available.

 

[Underseer]

taxpayer funded room

He's also the decider of that.

That statement is the exact opposite of the constitution. Objective standards exist for press passes, not one person's opinion.

aa

I don't think you understand how this works.

For conservatives, "free speech" only counts as free speech when it is used to defend Nazis. Acosta is not a Nazi, ergo he doesn't have nor deserve free speech rights. You would understand this if you weren't a freedom-hating libtard. I bet you're against fascism, aren't you? Admit it! You're one of those horrible people who are against fascism! You are a bad person, and you should feel ashamed! [/conservolibertarian]

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The alleged unacceptable behavior is exaggerated. Besides that, the cause of the behavior (which was not unacceptable) was that he was being targeted for removal of his microphone due to viewpoint discrimination, i.e. asking questions the President did not like. The due process provided is with the courts which undid the Dictator's move.

Now that your objections are addressed, you now know your President is trying to remove the freedom of a press that vehemently disagrees with him while asking questions and that's why he always calls all of them "enemy of the people."

It was exaggerated... yes. Take a lesson from that, actually.

He was not, however, targeted for the NATURE of the question, but the NUMBER of questions. He finished asking his question, and then when he asked if he could ask another question (and another and another and another? how many???) Trump said that he had to move on to another reporter... Trump was being fair and Acosta wanted to dominate the floor.

In the video I saw, as I now remember it (I could be wrong here - correct me if so), Acosta never got his second question out. We don't even know what he was going to ask. It could not possibly been viewpoint discrimination... it was simply what was on the face of it.... "You asked your question, it was answered, whose next... and they shut him down for being a dick about not getting the opportunity to ask any number of questions and take any amount of the limited time available.

The President gave a phoney baloney answer though. Not a real answer. And viewpoint of non fox reporters is known.

 

[RavenSky]

The President gave a phoney baloney answer though. Not a real answer. And viewpoint of non fox reporters is known.

Not only did Trump give a phoney baloney non-answer, reporters have always been able to ask follow up questions... especially when their first question wasn't answered.

And Trump's "rule changes" doesn't even change that fact... it just tries to claim the authority to discriminate. Trump can go fuck himself.