Posted on 04/08/2025 3:23:45 PM PDT by CFW
This is a great case to start ignoring these clowns.
Give a guy a black robe and suddenly he thinks he can exert his opinion over the whole country. And how exactly is the White House limiting the AP’s freedom of speech? They have no guaranteed right to be included in invited conversations by the Executive with select members of the press.
wait till trump refuses to call on them.
With the judge then order Trump must call on them?
ya, he probably will.
“today I am anouncing a beautiful EO... a EO that everyone will love.. The EO requires all federal judges to allow the press in their courtrooms complete with video cameras streamed to the internet in most cases so the american people can see exactly what is happening in their court rooms. I think it’s wonderful. I mean, if they can order me around, I should be able to order them around right? I think so. don’t you? it’s your court room after all” (/the end of my poor trump impersonation)
when the court replies “you don’t have that power!” Trump can simply reply “neither do you”.
Free Republic really needs a “like button”
It requires no such thing at all.
The LAAP-dog media think that freedom of the "press" refers only to them. It does not. The notion that "freedom of the press" refers to the trade of journalism is incorrect. Usage of the phrase "the press" to refer to newspapermen didn't originate until the early 1900s.
The origin of the term "the press" to refer to periodicals and journalism generally (see also the so-called Fourth Estate) didn't begin until the 1800s. The usage in reference specifically to reporters and journalists collectively didn't begin until the early 1900s.
At the time of the Framers of the Constitution, "the press" meant the printing press, and "freedom of the press" meant the right of citizens to publish, sharing their thoughts, opinions, and beliefs beyond the range of simple speech in a town square. Many examples of this were "citizen journalists," journaling the goings on in their communities, and sharing opinions on them with the other colonies.
"Freedom of the press" was meant to ban the federal government from stopping Americans from mass communicating, not to enshrine a special class of "journalists" as watchdogs over the government. All citizens were watchdogs, just as we do here on Free Republic.
Finally, here are some thoughts by Benjamin Franklin on "the court of the press" from a 1789 essay An Account of the Supremest Court of Judicature in Pennsylvania, viz. The Court of the Press.
What's interesting in Franklin's piece is that the "court" he is referring to is the so-called court of public opinion. The "press" is not a class of journalists as it is known today; it was the citizen journalist who had something to say. Quoting Franklin:
In whose favor and for whose emolument this court is established? In favor of about one citizen in 500, who by education, or practice in scribbling, has acquired a tolerable stile as to grammar and construction so as to bear printing; or who is possessed of a press and a few types? This 500th part of the citizens have the privilege of accusing and abusing the other 499 parts, at their pleasure; or they may hire out their pens and press to others for that purpose...
It is not by any Commission from the Supreme Executive Council, who might previously judge of the abilities, integrity, knowledge, &c. of the persons to be appointed to this great trust, of deciding upon the characters and good fame of the citizens; for this court is above that council, and may accuse, judge, and condemn it, at pleasure. Nor is it hereditary, as in the court of dernier resort, in the peerage of England. But any man who can procure pen, ink, and paper, with a press, and a huge pair of BLACKING balls, may commissionate himself: And his court is immediately established in the plenary possession and exercise of its rights.
Just as Franklin suggested, today's "one citizen in 500" class of AP reporter (or Twitter or TikTok or YouTube or Free Republic or DU users...) regularly engage in what Franklin called "the privilege of accusing and abusing the other 499 parts, at their pleasure." In other words, not everyone had access to the "pen, ink, and paper, with a press, and a huge pair of... balls" to advantage themselves of the 1st amendment's right to a free press. It would be wrong to suggest that the other 499 were "infringed" by their lack of access to the same.
And the lack of access to the Associated Press would be a similar case. The banning of the Associated Press from the White House would not abridge the people's access to a free press.
The judge was wrong to think that "freedom of the press" meant some kind of "journalist privilege."
-PJ
Good post.
The notion that the mass media are royalty and a fourth branch of government is insane on its face.
They believe it though.
Then they want to censor us to create and protect their monopoly.
Ignore.
Out of jurisdiction.
Lawyers are out of control in the judiciary and in politics
Don’t forget that Trump banned CNN’s Jim Acosta from the White House Press conferences and he sued and a judge ruled Trump had to un-ban him.
These out of control, power hungry despot judges need to be removed from the bench or their powers, or perceived powers, but cut drastically back to size.
They are way overstepping their bounds.
Who the f do these black robes tyrants think they are, time to investigate their financials and internet activity
Till then let them back, seat them in the back of room and never take a question from them
Hold the press conferences for the AP right in U.S. District Judge Trevor McFaggen’s chambers.
It’s the “stylebook” that is the problem imo. Many outlets follow it. Corporations have a stylebook. It determines what font and colors and phrases to use. Journalists shouldn’t have a stylebook. They aren’t marketeers. Or are they?
preferably blue
GOP is behind it
WTF? Seriously, is this how emboldened these judges are?
FFS Trump and Administration, either you do something or we’re going to turn into an anarchy state in a matter of weeks. Unreal, why?
How about a Republican appointed Judge order the AP to report the news and not fabricate it?
So basically, the judge is deeming that AP’s first amendment rights are superior to every other citizen in the United States. Some pigs are more equal than others.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.