Thread: CNN Reporters White House Press Pass Revoked

gina - 11/8/2018 at 10:00 PM

Jim Acosta, CNN Reporter had his White House press pass revoked after a heated question and answer session.

https://www.onenewsnow.com/media/2018/11/08/trump-acosta-spat-leads-to-repo rter-being-barred-from-wh


Should reporters have their wings clipped, and only be able to ask nice questions in nice ways?
Is Trump denying Acosta freedom of speech?


MartinD28 - 11/8/2018 at 10:29 PM

Fake News brought to you compliments of the White House. Do Trump & Sanders have no shame?


https://www.actionnewsjax.com/news/trending-now/sarah-sanders-tweeted-docto red-video-of-jim-acosta-wapost/869141297


sckeys - 11/8/2018 at 11:09 PM

Trump is fine as long as he is in charge but this is a good example of him under a little pressure from tough questions. He knows this looks good to the base and he hates not being in full control of the media.


2112 - 11/8/2018 at 11:35 PM

Just another example of Trump taking a crap all over the constitution while his followers cheer him on.


OriginalGoober - 11/9/2018 at 12:41 AM

Jim Acosta: Do you consider the caravan an invasion?

Trump: YES

end of story. Press briefings are not the Jim Acosta show. As soon as he kept talking after President Trump answered his question by injecting his own personal beliefs he should of been shut down.


OriginalGoober - 11/9/2018 at 12:51 AM

CNN is free to send another reporter in as well


MartinD28 - 11/9/2018 at 12:58 AM

quote:
Jim Acosta: Do you consider the caravan an invasion?

Trump: YES

end of story. Press briefings are not the Jim Acosta show. As soon as he kept talking after President Trump answered his question by injecting his own personal beliefs he should of been shut down.


No, not really, goob. Not end of story.

They are not the Banana Republic Don Show either. Somebody needs to remind Dictator Wannabe Don that this isn't The Apprentice. This is a time for real questions & answers - some of which are admittedly factually challenging for Trump to answer. However, we live in a country with a free press, and that doesn't give Trump free reign to go off on rants or rages, which he does all the time.

Very classy how he also went after Republicans that didn't embrace him and lost. MAGA.

[Edited on 11/9/2018 by MartinD28]


gina - 11/14/2018 at 12:57 AM

CNN is suing to get Jim Acosta's pass restores and requesting a restraining order against him being barred from the press conferences. Bringing up Constitutional rights.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/13/business/media/cnn-jim-acosta-trump-laws uit.html

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=cnn+suing+trump&view=detail&mi d=F62D8AAF11A14E347CA1F62D8AAF11A14E347CA1&FORM=VIRE

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/cnn-sues-white-house-over-revoked-c redentials-of-correspondent/ar-BBPEQtV?OCID=ansmsnnews11


Remarks: Suing the President and members of his administration, all of this is a waste of taxpayer money.

1. Does a President have to allow a reporter who he does not like because the reporters opinions differ from his because of free speech?

2. Reporters are supposed to be objective and not put a slant on their questions when asking them.

3. Does a President have a right to decide who is allowed to come from the various news sources to the meetings? Can he request a different reporter if he wants to? Can he refuse to accept questions from a reporter he has a problem with?

The networks will certainly put their spin on events and answers to their questions, but the questions themselves should be objective and seeking to fact find not just start with a pre-conceived premis and then try to prove that by the questions and answers received.

The Pakistani media did a good job when they interviewed Osama, they would tell him what was said and then ask him 'what do you have to say about this?" They remained neutral in their reporting which is why it was better than US reporting which tried to convince you of their talking points. The British reporters do the same, they present information to the person they want to ask questions of and then they allow that person to answer the questions. There needs to be more decorum from the media. They should ask their questions then report the FULL quotes on what was said not edit and then try to sway public opinion to suit their own agenda.

If good manners prevail, there should not be a conflict in a White House press or any other breifing.




[Edited on 11/14/2018 by gina]


MartinD28 - 11/14/2018 at 02:07 AM

quote:
CNN is suing to get Jim Acosta's pass restores and requesting a restraining order against him being barred from the press conferences. Bringing up Constitutional rights.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/13/business/media/cnn-jim-acosta-trump-laws uit.html

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=cnn+suing+trump&view=detail&mi d=F62D8AAF11A14E347CA1F62D8AAF11A14E347CA1&FORM=VIRE

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/cnn-sues-white-house-over-revoked-c redentials-of-correspondent/ar-BBPEQtV?OCID=ansmsnnews11


Remarks: Suing the President and members of his administration, all of this is a waste of taxpayer money.

1. Does a President have to allow a reporter who he does not like because the reporters opinions differ from his because of free speech?

2. Reporters are supposed to be objective and not put a slant on their questions when asking them.

3. Does a President have a right to decide who is allowed to come from the various news sources to the meetings? Can he request a different reporter if he wants to? Can he refuse to accept questions from a reporter he has a problem with?

The networks will certainly put their spin on events and answers to their questions, but the questions themselves should be objective and seeking to fact find not just start with a pre-conceived premis and then try to prove that by the questions and answers received.

The Pakistani media did a good job when they interviewed Osama, they would tell him what was said and then ask him 'what do you have to say about this?" They remained neutral in their reporting which is why it was better than US reporting which tried to convince you of their talking points. The British reporters do the same, they present information to the person they want to ask questions of and then they allow that person to answer the questions. There needs to be more decorum from the media. They should ask their questions then report the FULL quotes on what was said not edit and then try to sway public opinion to suit their own agenda.

If good manners prevail, there should not be a conflict in a White House press or any other breifing.




[Edited on 11/14/2018 by gina]


Yours seems like a post for a banana republic.

This strategy of Trump, Sanders, Conway, etc. is nothing more than reinforcing the idea that in a free country like ours, those 3 consider the press & media the enemy of the people because "truth" and "facts" are mutually exclusive with this administration.

The results of the election and rejection of Trump has put his anger & frustration over the top. Wait until the HOR starts doing overtsight in January - something that has been absent the last 2 years. Thank you, Mr. Ryan. Enjoy your retirement after being a lackey for Donnie for 2 years.


BIGV - 11/14/2018 at 04:25 AM

quote:
Somebody needs to remind Dictator Wannabe Don that this isn't The Apprentice.


Somebody needs to remind any reporter from any news affiliate that when the President says "Next question", that is exactly what he means


nebish - 11/14/2018 at 04:47 AM

quote:
If good manners prevail, there should not be a conflict in a White House press or any other breifing.




That was funny.


MartinD28 - 11/14/2018 at 02:42 PM

quote:
quote:
Somebody needs to remind Dictator Wannabe Don that this isn't The Apprentice.


Somebody needs to remind any reporter from any news affiliate that when the President says "Next question", that is exactly what he means


So you are good with his rants and condescending manner in which he addresses reporters when he is in defensive posturing mode and lashing out? He has a hard time accepting facts & truth. It is much easier to bash reporters than acknowledge facts or ever being wrong.


BIGV - 11/14/2018 at 04:13 PM

quote:
So you are good with his rants and condescending manner in which he addresses reporters when he is in defensive posturing mode and lashing out?


He does not bother me as much as CNN and far less than Hillary would have.


MartinD28 - 11/14/2018 at 04:20 PM

quote:
quote:
So you are good with his rants and condescending manner in which he addresses reporters when he is in defensive posturing mode and lashing out?


He does not bother me as much as CNN and far less than Hillary would have.


That should surprise no one. I guess Trump trumps the first and fifth amendments? Those are freedoms that anyone of any party affiliation should be concerned with.

How long will Hillary be a topic for you & goob - for eternity? She is no longer relevant.


2112 - 11/14/2018 at 04:40 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
So you are good with his rants and condescending manner in which he addresses reporters when he is in defensive posturing mode and lashing out?


He does not bother me as much as CNN and far less than Hillary would have.


That should surprise no one. I guess Trump trumps the first and fifth amendments? Those are freedoms that anyone of any party affiliation should be concerned with.

How long will Hillary be a topic for you & goob - for eternity? She is no longer relevant.


Well, Republicans still bring up Jimmy Carter, so I would say Hillary will remain a hot topic for Republicans for the next 38 years.


2112 - 11/14/2018 at 04:46 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
So you are good with his rants and condescending manner in which he addresses reporters when he is in defensive posturing mode and lashing out?


He does not bother me as much as CNN and far less than Hillary would have.


That should surprise no one. I guess Trump trumps the first and fifth amendments? Those are freedoms that anyone of any party affiliation should be concerned with.

How long will Hillary be a topic for you & goob - for eternity? She is no longer relevant.


Well, Republicans still bring up Jimmy Carter, so I would say Hillary will remain a hot topic for Republicans for the next 38 years.


And besides, how do you expect Republicans to defend Trump without bringing up Hillary? Trump is a disaster, so they can only defend him by bringing up a hypothetical scenario that in their minds could have been worse.


BIGV - 11/14/2018 at 05:08 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
So you are good with his rants and condescending manner in which he addresses reporters when he is in defensive posturing mode and lashing out?


He does not bother me as much as CNN and far less than Hillary would have.


That should surprise no one. I guess Trump trumps the first and fifth amendments? Those are freedoms that anyone of any party affiliation should be concerned with.

How long will Hillary be a topic for you & goob - for eternity? She is no longer relevant.


Fair enough, seems to bother you more than me. I brought up her name for the contrast; it's obvious we will never see eye to eye and that's OK.

Enjoy the day.


MartinD28 - 11/14/2018 at 08:06 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
So you are good with his rants and condescending manner in which he addresses reporters when he is in defensive posturing mode and lashing out?


He does not bother me as much as CNN and far less than Hillary would have.


That should surprise no one. I guess Trump trumps the first and fifth amendments? Those are freedoms that anyone of any party affiliation should be concerned with.

How long will Hillary be a topic for you & goob - for eternity? She is no longer relevant.


Fair enough, seems to bother you more than me. I brought up her name for the contrast; it's obvious we will never see eye to eye and that's OK.

Enjoy the day.


What do Libertarians think of Trump stepping on first & fifth amendment freedoms of the press?


BIGV - 11/14/2018 at 09:55 PM

quote:
What do Libertarians think of Trump stepping on first & fifth amendment freedoms of the press?


I do not speak for anyone but myself.

Watch the video. A young female intern approaches Jim Acosta and attempts to take the Microphone away from him 3 times and is brushed aside. The President told him 6 times that, "That is enough" and still he pushed with his line of questioning. I hope the Intern sues him for assault.

I have zero empathy for anyone, representing and media organization who acts like that.


MartinD28 - 11/14/2018 at 10:16 PM

quote:
quote:
What do Libertarians think of Trump stepping on first & fifth amendment freedoms of the press?


I do not speak for anyone but myself.

Watch the video. A young female intern approaches Jim Acosta and attempts to take the Microphone away from him 3 times and is brushed aside. The President told him 6 times that, "That is enough" and still he pushed with his line of questioning. I hope the Intern sues him for assault.

I have zero empathy for anyone, representing and media organization who acts like that.


Zero empathy is one thing. That reflects opinions & feelings. The question is not about lack of empathy but about a Libertarian interpretation of Trump's attempted trampling on the first & fifth amendments of The Constitution.

If we want to relegate to empathy or lack of, then we only need to look at Trump calling out 3 black female reporters.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/what-a-stupid-question-trump -demeans-three-black-female-reporters-in-two-days/2018/11/09/272113d0-e441- 11e8-b759-3d88a5ce9e19_story.html?utm_term=.47428cec14a0

President Trump has made no secret of his contempt for reporters, whom he calls “fake news” and “enemy of the American people.” He’s also had unkind things to say about women and people who are African American.

This week, he hit a trifecta, singling out three African American women who are journalists. The women — Abby Phillip, April Ryan and Yamiche Alcindor — earned his contempt apparently just for asking him questions.

Trump called one of Phillip’s questions “stupid,” described Ryan as “a loser” and brushed off Alcindor, saying her question was “racist.”

Phillip, a CNN reporter and former Washington Post journalist, drew Trump’s wrath on Friday, after she asked whether he hoped Matthew G. Whitaker, Trump’s appointee as acting attorney general, would “rein in” special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s probe of Trump’s presidential campaign.

“What a stupid question that is. What a stupid question,” Trump snapped. He didn’t answer the allegedly “stupid” question, but he did pour more contempt on Phillip. “I watch you a lot,” he said. “You ask a lot of stupid questions.”

He suggested he was considering pulling other reporters’ press credentials to cover the White House, as he did with CNN reporter Jim Acosta on Wednesday. Among those he brought up in that context was Ryan.

April Ryan, White House correspondent for American Urban Radio Networks, this year. (Kristoffer Tripplaar/For The Washington Post)

“You talk about someone who’s a loser,” Trump said of Ryan, a reporter for American Urban Radio Networks and a contributor to CNN. “She doesn’t know what the hell she’s doing. She gets publicity and then she gets a pay raise, or she gets a contract with, I think, CNN. But she’s very nasty and she shouldn’t be. You’ve got to treat the White House and the office of the presidency with respect.”

Trump’s “loser” comment came two days after he admonished Ryan at a White House news conference.

“Sit down! I didn’t call you,” Trump commanded after Ryan tried to ask him about alleged voter suppression in the midterm elections. “Such a hostile media, it’s so sad,” Trump added as Ryan pressed him. “You rudely interrupted him,” Trump told her, referring to another reporter.

A few moments later, Alcindor asked Trump about his recent characterization of himself as “a nationalist” and whether that label was “emboldening white nationalists.”

Trump interrupted her and responded, “I don’t know why you say that, that is such a racist question.” He repeated that characterization — “racist” — two more times.
Trump slams Jim Acosta, April Ryan
President Trump on Nov. 9 called CNN's Jim Acosta an "unprofessional guy" and American Urban Radio Networks' April Ryan "a loser." (The Washington Post)

Trump has disparaged many people, so his responses to Phillip, Ryan and Alcindor might simply reflect equal-opportunity contempt. But all three of the latest examples fall into the categories of people — journalists, women, African Americans — for whom Trump has reserved special nastiness. Among the African American figures are Democratic Reps. Maxine Waters of California and Frederica S. Wilson of Florida.

“He’s not able to finesse his disdain for certain people,” Ryan said in an interview Friday. “Unfortunately, or maybe fortunately because you can see for yourself what it is, perception is reality with this president. . . He attacks the people he feels are beneath him.”

She added, “He’s not apparently built for this. Being in the pressure cooker of the White House has exposed him for what he is.”

Phillip didn’t respond to several requests for comment on Friday. Alcindor declined to comment but tweeted after Wednesday’s news conference, “I followed up the president calling my question ‘racist’ with a policy question about his proposed middle class tax cut because that’s what journalists do. We press on. We focus on the privilege of asking questions for a living. We do the work.”

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders didn’t respond to a request for comment.

The attacks on the three women left Sarah Glover, the president of the National Association of Black Journalists, shaking her head.

“The most powerful man in the free world is verbally abusing journalists,” she said. “Donald Trump’s comments this week have reached an all-time low with attacks on three black female journalists.”

She called Trump’s comments about Ryan, Phillip and Alcindor “appalling and irresponsible. They should be denounced.”


BrerRabbit - 11/14/2018 at 10:17 PM

Trump can dish it out but he can't take it.


BIGV - 11/14/2018 at 10:19 PM

You don't like President Trump and I am elated that Hillary is not in the Oval office.

We'll call it a draw.


BrerRabbit - 11/14/2018 at 10:24 PM

Has zero to do with liking him or not. He is going down. You don't like him either.


cyclone88 - 11/14/2018 at 11:14 PM

quote:

What do Libertarians think of Trump stepping on first & fifth amendment freedoms of the press?


I can't answer that question, but am stumped how the 5th amendment affects freedom of the press.


gina - 11/14/2018 at 11:23 PM

quote:
Jim Acosta: Do you consider the caravan an invasion?

Trump: YES

end of story. Press briefings are not the Jim Acosta show. As soon as he kept talking after President Trump answered his question by injecting his own personal beliefs he should of been shut down.


Goob is right that a reporter cannot put his/her personal beliefs in an interview. They can only ask questions and report the responses that the interviewee or speech giver provides to them. The reporter can tell the person they are asking questions of what someone has said or about an event or policy and then ask their opinion or plan for a response or change but they cannot tell that person how anything should be.


gina - 11/14/2018 at 11:24 PM

quote:
quote:

What do Libertarians think of Trump stepping on first & fifth amendment freedoms of the press?


I can't answer that question, but am stumped how the 5th amendment affects freedom of the press.


The lawsuit CNN has launched mentions the 1st and 5th amendments. It was reported tonite that other news organizations are also joining the suit. The persecution continues.

[Edited on 11/14/2018 by gina]


BrerRabbit - 11/14/2018 at 11:48 PM

Fifth Amendment relevant clause re "right to due process".


cyclone88 - 11/14/2018 at 11:56 PM

quote:
Fifth Amendment relevant clause re "right to due process".


Hmmmmm. I must've missed something. 1st amendment makes sense. Reading the complaint now.

[Edited on 11/15/2018 by cyclone88]


gina - 11/15/2018 at 12:01 AM

For everyone here is the short list of the Amendments (1-10)originally created by the forefathers of this country.

https://www.aclu.org/united-states-bill-rights-first-10-amendments-constitu tion

First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Second Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Third Amendment
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner; nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


Fourth Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Fifth Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.


Sixth Amendment
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.


Seventh Amendment
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of common law.


Eighth Amendment
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


Ninth Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Tenth Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Comment: Perhaps they felt Mr. Acosta could not be banned or have his official credentials revoked without their being some sort of formal hearing and having it proven he did anything unlawful. If he mentioned the Russian investigation then that brings up potential/possible illegal acts that could have been committed by government officials. Trump was not the only one named in the lawsuit, that is why this is so disturbing. I think General Kelly was mentioned as well so there is a military component.

[Edited on 11/15/2018 by gina]


MartinD28 - 11/15/2018 at 12:09 AM

quote:
quote:

What do Libertarians think of Trump stepping on first & fifth amendment freedoms of the press?


I can't answer that question, but am stumped how the 5th amendment affects freedom of the press.


Well, I'm not a lawyer so possibly the wording of the question I posed should have separated fifth amendment out of the the "freedom of the press" portion of the original question and instead raised the violation of the fifth amendment as a question unto itself.

When the original lawsuit was brought by CNN & Acosta, those of us who are not lawyers and want to better understand the basis & meanings of this try to read up to obtain that understanding of what has transpired and what the legal argument is. It would seem that CNN would have a pretty decent staff of lawyers to move forward with this case.

For us laymen, one of the better paragraphs I found to understand the basis follows:

https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/cnn-sues-trump-acosta.php

"In addition, as veteran First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams told CNN, case law in the US has established that before a press pass is revoked or denied, “you have to have notice, you have to have a chance to respond, and you have to have a written opinion by the White House as to what it’s doing and why, so the courts can examine it.” None of those things occurred in this case, which is why the CNN lawsuit argues withdrawing Acosta’s pass is a breach of the Fifth Amendment."


gina - 11/15/2018 at 12:13 AM

Tomorrow, Thursday 11-15-18 at 3 p.m. US District Court Judge Timothy Kelly will issue a ruling.

Update 5:40 p.m. EST Nov. 14: The judge in the CNN lawsuit against President Donald Trump and other administration officials over banning reporter Jim Acosta from the White House said he’ll issue a ruling Thursday at 3 p.m., according to news outlets.

Jay Wallace, President of Fox: "Secret Service passes for working White House journalists should never be weaponized," Wallace said. "While we don't condone the growing antagonistic tone by both the President and the press at recent media avails, we do support a free press, access and open exchanges for the American people."

https://www.wftv.com/news/breaking-news/cnn-sues-after-jim-acosta-banned-fr om-white-house/872004599


REMARK: They state the 5th amendment reference is for due process.

[Edited on 11/15/2018 by gina]


BrerRabbit - 11/15/2018 at 12:14 AM

Fifth Amendment due process clause makes no mention of criminal charges:

"No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Trump wants to muzzle the press like dogs then acts all shocked when they start acting like dogs. Power to them, someone's got to call out this charlatan. Vive le press libre!


cyclone88 - 11/15/2018 at 12:24 AM

quote:
For us laymen, one of the better paragraphs I found to understand the basis follows:

https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/cnn-sues-trump-acosta.php

"In addition, as veteran First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams told CNN, case law in the US has established that before a press pass is revoked or denied, “you have to have notice, you have to have a chance to respond, and you have to have a written opinion by the White House as to what it’s doing and why, so the courts can examine it.” None of those things occurred in this case, which is why the CNN lawsuit argues withdrawing Acosta’s pass is a breach of the Fifth Amendment."


Thanks for taking the time to provide that. No question about it being a 1st amendment issue & Abrams would've been a far better choice than Ted Olson to represent CNN. I read the complaint & Abrams in your link makes a more compelling argument than Olson does re 5th. Guess we'll wait until tomorrow.


MartinD28 - 11/16/2018 at 05:28 PM

Trump continues to win bigly. . Soon it will be Mueller time.


Judge: White House must return CNN's Jim Acosta's credential


https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-announce-ruling-cnn-reporters-credential-c ase-055213240--politics.html


sckeys - 11/16/2018 at 05:42 PM

For all of that rage from the right about “assault” they didn’t argue it in court.


gina - 11/16/2018 at 06:09 PM

They have to go by the rules of law in court. They can't use opinions and complain about it not being fair.

I think reporters need to frame their questions with decorum and ask what the President has to say about anything they bring up, or ask about future responses, plans, policy changes or enforcement but the 'you did this' interrogation type questioning can't continue.

I gave the example of the Paki reporters and Osama, regarding the bombing of the Khobar Towers one reporter said to him 'the Saudis think you did that, what do you have to say about it'? They did not ask did you do it? Or accuse him putting him in a defensive mode. They put it in a more gentler way and he responded "I did not do that, Iranian intelligence did that attack". I remember when the Afghan Islamic Press on 9-12-01 asked him about 9-11-01, they told him 'the Americans are saying you did this attack, what do you have to say about it?' and his answer was "I had nothing to do with that explosion". The point is even interviewing someone such as Osama, there are ways to do it.

Why can't reporters ask Trump questions without pissing him off? They ask a question and then do not let him sufficiently answer it before they start talking over him, or they refuse to accept his answer and keep hammering on the point they want to make. Reporters should not be making points on someone they are questioning, they should ask questions and allow the person to respond, not cutting them off and berating them. That is what interrogation is, and an interview is NOT an interrogation.

AN INTERVIEW IS NOT AN INTERROGATION, and cannot be conducted in the same way.

As to the revocation of the press credentials, that went too far, I think if Mr. Acosta pissed the President off enough he could have been asked to leave the briefing and then a private meeting could have been held with him to explain why he was ejected from the meeting.

Some of the press briefings were like a three ring circus witchhunt in the early days. That cannot be.

[Edited on 11/16/2018 by gina]


cyclone88 - 11/16/2018 at 07:02 PM

No big win. Certainly no victory for freedom of the press. Acosta got his pass back temporarily & judge didn't touch the 1st amendment arguments. He did the minimum & used the 5th amendment test set out in a precedent. Trump could, if he wanted to belabor the point, satisfy the requirements & revoke the pass again. My guess is that DJT will ignore Acosta in the future. As both sides pointed out, CNN didn't suffer any harm because they have 50 other WH reporters. Acosta didn't suffer any harm because he still has the same job w/no reduction in hours or pay. The public didn't suffer any harm because Acosta of CNN is not the sole news source in the world.

What I found interesting was that lots of other organizations "supported" CNN, but none actually filed an amicus brief as was expected (or at least they haven't been made available yet). Only the White House Correspondents Association filed in support of CNN.

This whole system of passes distributed by the Secret Service seems antiquated to me. Now, we have the judiciary ordering the executive branch to make rules of conduct for press conferences - a bit too much government interference for me. My guess is that DJT is going to make the rules as ordered & then stop holding conferences.




[Edited on 11/17/2018 by cyclone88]


BrerRabbit - 11/16/2018 at 07:45 PM

quote:
I gave the example of the Paki reporters and Osama


First name basis, isn't that cozy.

Aloha snackbar. Hey mr. Taliban Tally me banana


Muleman1994 - 11/18/2018 at 09:55 PM

quote:
Fifth Amendment due process clause makes no mention of criminal charges:

"No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Trump wants to muzzle the press like dogs then acts all shocked when they start acting like dogs. Power to them, someone's got to call out this charlatan. Vive le press libre!



Judge Kavanaugh was denied the presumption of innocence and due process by the Democrats and the corrupt liberal media.

As it turns out all the allegations were lies.

Acosta is an a-hole and many members of the White House Press Corp. also want him out.

Oh well, now he will have to abide by standards of conduct and decorum.

.


jkeller - 11/18/2018 at 10:14 PM

quote:
quote:
Fifth Amendment due process clause makes no mention of criminal charges:

"No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Trump wants to muzzle the press like dogs then acts all shocked when they start acting like dogs. Power to them, someone's got to call out this charlatan. Vive le press libre!



Judge Kavanaugh was denied the presumption of innocence and due process by the Democrats and the corrupt liberal media.

As it turns out all the allegations were lies.

Acosta is an a-hole and many members of the White House Press Corp. also want him out.

Oh well, now he will have to abide by standards of conduct and decorum.

.


There was no presumption of innocence because this was a job interview, not a trial. Nothing was proven either way because that was not the point of the proceedings.

If everyone feels that way about Acosta, why did all of the other news companies, including Fox News, file amicus briefs supporting him.

The standards of decorum are not legality binding for anything. And the Administration will also have to abide by them. That won’t last 10 minutes.

Now that you are back, I guess we have to live with your constant lies and imaginations of how the world works.


BrerRabbit - 11/18/2018 at 10:39 PM

quote:
Acosta is an a-hole and many members of the White House Press Corp. also want him out.


If being an a-hole is grounds for dismissal then Trump and his goons should get packing.


Muleman1994 - 11/18/2018 at 11:13 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Fifth Amendment due process clause makes no mention of criminal charges:

"No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Trump wants to muzzle the press like dogs then acts all shocked when they start acting like dogs. Power to them, someone's got to call out this charlatan. Vive le press libre!



Judge Kavanaugh was denied the presumption of innocence and due process by the Democrats and the corrupt liberal media.

As it turns out all the allegations were lies.

Acosta is an a-hole and many members of the White House Press Corp. also want him out.

Oh well, now he will have to abide by standards of conduct and decorum.

.


There was no presumption of innocence because this was a job interview, not a trial. Nothing was proven either way because that was not the point of the proceedings.

If everyone feels that way about Acosta, why did all of the other news companies, including Fox News, file amicus briefs supporting him.

The standards of decorum are not legality binding for anything. And the Administration will also have to abide by them. That won’t last 10 minutes.

Now that you are back, I guess we have to live with your constant lies and imaginations of how the world works.



What Judge Kavanaugh was put through was not a "job interview", it was a confirmation hearing which he passed even though the Democrats tried to destroy him with lies. Every one of the false accusations were proven to be lies.

As per the judge that ruled Acosta be given his hard pass back he must also abide by the standards of conduct as written by the White House.

No one has a "right" to enter the White House grounds. That is a privilege extended by the Administration.

Many White House Press Corp. members have been complaining about Acosta's speech-making, asking endless questions and refusing to give up the microphone.

Now Acosta will be given a new set of rules of conduct, will have to sign for them and abide by them.


BrerRabbit - 11/18/2018 at 11:33 PM

That's good. Glad to hear you think reinstating Acosta's press pass was the proper decision. I agree.


jkeller - 11/18/2018 at 11:41 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Fifth Amendment due process clause makes no mention of criminal charges:

"No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Trump wants to muzzle the press like dogs then acts all shocked when they start acting like dogs. Power to them, someone's got to call out this charlatan. Vive le press libre!



Judge Kavanaugh was denied the presumption of innocence and due process by the Democrats and the corrupt liberal media.

As it turns out all the allegations were lies.

Acosta is an a-hole and many members of the White House Press Corp. also want him out.

Oh well, now he will have to abide by standards of conduct and decorum.

.


There was no presumption of innocence because this was a job interview, not a trial. Nothing was proven either way because that was not the point of the proceedings.

If everyone feels that way about Acosta, why did all of the other news companies, including Fox News, file amicus briefs supporting him.

The standards of decorum are not legality binding for anything. And the Administration will also have to abide by them. That won’t last 10 minutes.

Now that you are back, I guess we have to live with your constant lies and imaginations of how the world works.



What Judge Kavanaugh was put through was not a "job interview", it was a confirmation hearing which he passed even though the Democrats tried to destroy him with lies. Every one of the false accusations were proven to be lies.

As per the judge that ruled Acosta be given his hard pass back he must also abide by the standards of conduct as written by the White House.

No one has a "right" to enter the White House grounds. That is a privilege extended by the Administration.

Many White House Press Corp. members have been complaining about Acosta's speech-making, asking endless questions and refusing to give up the microphone.

Now Acosta will be given a new set of rules of conduct, will have to sign for them and abide by them.




Swing and a miss.

The Kavanaugh hearings were interviews to determine whether he was fit to be on the Supreme Court. Ergo, a job interview. Your point of being denied presumption of innocence, by your own remarks, does not exist in this case.

The judge did not say that. The judge said that the Administration denied Acosta's 1st and 5th Amendment rights. They have to establish rules of etiquette that both sides must adhere to. That includes Trump and Sarah Huckabee Sanders. That will work out well I'm sure.

Everyone has the right to enter the White House grounds. The WH belongs to the people, not Donald Trump.

Please show us a link to all of these complaints about Acosta. You won't because they don't exist.

As Acosta won the suit, he has to sign nothing. BTW, the judge said that SHS probably lied when she said Acosta put his hands on the woman. I know, someone in this Admin was found to be lying by a judge. That hasn't happened in at least 2 weeks.


Muleman1994 - 11/18/2018 at 11:54 PM

The Kavanaugh hearings were interviews to determine whether he was fit to be on the Supreme Court. Ergo, a job interview. Your point of being denied presumption of innocence, by your own remarks, does not exist in this case.

- The Senate’s responsibility is to advise and consent. That “job interview” crap came from the Democrats and the corrupt liberal media.


The judge did not say that. The judge said that the Administration denied Acosta's 1st and 5th Amendment rights. They have to establish rules of etiquette that both sides must adhere to. That includes Trump and Sarah Huckabee Sanders. That will work out well I'm sure.

- “that both sides must adhere to. That includes Trump and Sarah Huckabee Sanders” does not appear in the judge’s ruling. You are a liar.


Everyone has the right to enter the White House grounds. The WH belongs to the people, not Donald Trump.

- Not even close son. Go ahead and try walking onto the grounds. The Secret Service will have you down on the ground crying.

Please show us a link to all of these complaints about Acosta. You won't because they don't exist.

- Widely reported by legitimate news. Get informed.

As Acosta won the suit, he has to sign nothing. BTW, the judge said that SHS probably lied when she said Acosta put his hands on the woman. I know, someone in this Admin was found to be lying by a judge. That hasn't happened in at least 2 weeks.

- Acoata will have to sing acknowledging receipt.



sckeys - 11/19/2018 at 12:35 AM

MAGA- Media Ain’t Going Away


jkeller - 11/19/2018 at 01:09 AM

“Widely reported”. But he can’t find a link. I’ll continue to discuss things with people who are not misanthropes. Others are not worth anyone’s time.


cyclone88 - 11/19/2018 at 01:37 AM

quote:
Swing and a miss.

The Kavanaugh hearings were interviews to determine whether he was fit to be on the Supreme Court. Ergo, a job interview. Your point of being denied presumption of innocence, by your own remarks, does not exist in this case.

The judge did not say that. The judge said that the Administration denied Acosta's 1st and 5th Amendment rights. They have to establish rules of etiquette that both sides must adhere to. That includes Trump and Sarah Huckabee Sanders. That will work out well I'm sure.

Everyone has the right to enter the White House grounds. The WH belongs to the people, not Donald Trump.

Please show us a link to all of these complaints about Acosta. You won't because they don't exist.

As Acosta won the suit, he has to sign nothing. BTW, the judge said that SHS probably lied when she said Acosta put his hands on the woman. I know, someone in this Admin was found to be lying by a judge. That hasn't happened in at least 2 weeks.



JK, I usually agree w/you, but having read both briefs and the judge's order, the judge himself said he didn't decide the merits of the case. He punted. He didn't say anyone's rights were violated. He said there were no clear conduct guidelines by which the press had to abide so until Acosta got them & violated them, he got his pass back. Assuming everyone behaves, it's ultimately the Secret Service's call who gets into the WH.

No one "won" anything. Acosta may be in the room, but I wonder how quickly DJT will call on him.



BIGV - 11/19/2018 at 02:55 AM

quote:
My guess is that DJT will ignore Acosta in the future.


More than likely the case.


Muleman1994 - 11/19/2018 at 03:44 PM

Acosta ‘bout to get smacked around again:

CNN requests emergency briefing as White House looks to revoke Jim Acosta’s credential again
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/cnn-requests-emergency-briefing-as-white-h ouse-looks-to-revoke-jim-acostas-credential-again


BrerRabbit - 11/19/2018 at 05:01 PM

Boring. Looks like the sitcommies need a new scriptwriter, their show is stale. No way they will last another season.


MartinD28 - 11/19/2018 at 05:23 PM

quote:
Boring. Looks like the sitcommies need a new scriptwriter, their show is stale. No way they will last another season.

Here's another Trump diversion.

Trump condemned William McRaven - the retired 4 start Navy Admiral & long time Seal who took down OSB. And why not? Trump tells us he knows more than the Generals, writes his own responses to Mueller...so it goes w/out saying with all of Trump's background & knowledge in foreign affairs, intelligence, and military operations that he should certainly question another American Military hero.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/trump-criticizes-admiral-in-charge- of-bin-laden-raid


BrerRabbit - 11/19/2018 at 05:58 PM

McRaven bad. Trump good.


sckeys - 11/19/2018 at 06:21 PM

That Fox interview was something. Why not go to Arlington? He was busy “making calls for the country” and for him to gripe so much about NFL players and the flag, his handling of that WW1 memorial was pitiful. Now he critizes the OSB take down. Regardless if it was a Bush or George Washington plan, Obama was a major part of that. And Trump hates it.


gina - 11/19/2018 at 11:28 PM

quote:
Acosta ‘bout to get smacked around again:

CNN requests emergency briefing as White House looks to revoke Jim Acosta’s credential again
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/cnn-requests-emergency-briefing-as-white-h ouse-looks-to-revoke-jim-acostas-credential-again




All the legal stuff, it should be unncessary. Trump said they would develop rules for the press conference. Why does common sense not prevail?

Acosta is clearly not one of the President's favorite reporters. There are things that could happen differently from both sides.

1. Acosta can ask a question, inform the President about something written, reported by any credible source or legitamite polling organization and then ask the President what he thinks about it, believes about it, thinks should happen in response to that.

2. The questions should be regarding responses or potential responses to certain situations/events/policies. example: asking the President if he thinks there needs to be a policy change on an issue, or if he plans to look into and/or implement one. That is a legitamite question.

3. Accusals, intimidation, interrogation are not okay because this is not a courtroom. Some reporters would be happier being lawyers or Senators or Congressman and arguing their points of view all day, a White House Press Conference is not the forum for that.

4. Reporters need to ask their questions, wait for the President to finish answering them, then if warranted ask a follow up question for clarification. Reporters should not interrupt the President when he is speaking or anyone else they may be interviewing for that matter. They may not agree with the President's point of view or opinion but they must let him have his point of view and speak it.

5. PUNISHMENT for transgressions or over stepping the bounds of proper conduct at a Press Conference.

Firstly, the President is the President, a head of state, you cannot treat him badly just because you do not like him or his opinions. Baseball players get suspended for a certain number of games for bad behavior, maybe reporters need to have that happen as well. If they cannot behave themselves, they get ejected from the conference and suspended for the next conference. If it keeps happening, then the network can send someone else to cover the conferences.

This legal grandstanding is unncessary, just eject them, let them come back next time when they are calm. The President should have a legal right to request or not have certain reporters who he feels are disruptive at his conferences. Yes there must be freedom of the press, if the reporters adhere to guidelines for good conduct they would not be ejected, but a reporter refusing to hand the microphone to another one when the President feels he has finished answering that reporter's question is NOT proper conduct. Maybe the reporter does not like the answer he received, but others also have a right to ask their questions and get answers. Reporters need to be aware of the other reporters who also have jobs to do.

If the reporter wants an in depth probe on an issue, invite the President to a one on one interview it is that simple.

In this instance if President Trump sincerely does not want Acosta at any of his briefings, then the network should send someone else and find other assignments for the reporter.


cyclone88 - 11/20/2018 at 03:00 PM

quote:
Acosta ‘bout to get smacked around again:

CNN requests emergency briefing as White House looks to revoke Jim Acosta’s credential again
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/cnn-requests-emergency-briefing-as-white-h ouse-looks-to-revoke-jim-acostas-credential-again



All the legal stuff, it should be unncessary. Trump said they would develop rules for the press conference. Why does common sense not prevail?


The "legal stuff" is unnecessary.There's no free speech issue here. It's a case of egos. When one egotistical reporter - Acosta - pushed his bad behavior until he got his hard pass revoked (but not his access to covering the WH or POTUS) by an egotistical POTUS, he & his employer put the matter in the hands of the court.

The courts don't want to deal w/this petty BS. I was surprised CNN's request for a TRO (issued in EMERGENCIES to prevent some imminent danger - often domestic violence) wasn't denied outright as Acosta being w/o a press pass hardly constitutes an emergency to anyone, including Acosta. However, the judge ordered rules of conduct be developed (for the 1st time in WH history) & Acosta got his pass back.

Instead of ignoring the WH letter that actually reiterates the court ruling - "we're going to have rules of conduct & you'd better mind them" - CNN & Acosta dashed back to court tattling that they got a letter. Like toddlers.

If they truly believed there was a real threat to constitutional rights, CNN & Acosta would file an actual lawsuit - not requests for the court to do some half-assed BS - calling for a decision to be made on the merits of the case with full briefs and arguments in front of a full panel of judges. And all that "support" CNN got from other media? Nowhere can I find that a brief was actually filed by any of these organizations; they made some noise but didn't act. Really, what U.S. citizen or media company is actually against Free Speech?

I'm a Democrat & far from a Donald Trump supporter. However, this piddling ego contest makes a mockery of the judicial system. DJT is going to ignore Acosta or quit doing press conferences. He's free to do both; there's no constitutional obligation for any POTUS to hold a press conference.







BIGV - 11/20/2018 at 03:13 PM

quote:
DJT is going to ignore Acosta


Is this not what most people do when constantly annoyed?


MartinD28 - 11/20/2018 at 03:25 PM

quote:
quote:
DJT is going to ignore Acosta


Is this not what most people do when constantly annoyed?


You response seems to support Trump.

Maybe Trump & Sanders should just quit doing press conferences because these pressers are nothing but egomaniac shows & lie fests to begin with. We can resume press conferences when there is a new administration & the occupant of the WH doesn't refer to fact checkers & the media as "enemy of the people".


BIGV - 11/20/2018 at 03:43 PM

quote:
You response seems to support Trump.


And what if it does?...Interpret that any way you choose. In this case as with most, I "side" with whomever I feel is "right". If ANY President feels as though he is being badgered by ANY representative of the media and chooses to ignore said person for whatever reason, whether I voted for them or not, more power to them. If you read this and ascertain I have disdain for the media, you are spot on.


MartinD28 - 11/20/2018 at 03:48 PM

quote:
quote:
You response seems to support Trump.


And what if it does?...Interpret that any way you choose. In this case as with most, I "side" with whomever I feel is "right". If ANY President feels as though he is being badgered by ANY representative of the media and chooses to ignore said person for whatever reason, whether I voted for them or not, more power to them. If you read this and ascertain I have disdain for the media, you are spot on.


You have every right to have disdain for the media even if they serve the purpose of doing checks & balances on a pathological liar of a president who speaks and attempts to act like an autocrat.

Maybe we should just clamp down the press because they don't show respect for an abusive zealot?


BIGV - 11/20/2018 at 04:07 PM

quote:
Maybe we should just clamp down the press because they don't show respect for an abusive zealot?


Your mind is made up and any attempts at conversation are useless at this point.

Have a great day and I look forward to talking and trading views on music with you in the future.

Happy Thanksgiving!


BrerRabbit - 11/20/2018 at 04:44 PM

quote:
Really, what U.S. citizen or media company is actually against Free Speech?


Proclamations like "the media is the enemy of the people" make it a safe bet that free speech is under attack. I don't agree that this is a trifling matter. I am with Admiral McRaven on this, Trump's hostility to media is "perhaps the greatest threat to democracy in my lifetime."


BIGV - 11/20/2018 at 05:33 PM

quote:
quote:
Really, what U.S. citizen or media company is actually against Free Speech?


Proclamations like "the media is the enemy of the people" make it a safe bet that free speech is under attack. I don't agree that this is a trifling matter. I am with Admiral McRaven on this, Trump's hostility to media is "perhaps the greatest threat to democracy in my lifetime."



"Hostility" is a threat?...I would consider those who use the fictional term "Hate speech" as a much larger menace.


BrerRabbit - 11/20/2018 at 06:01 PM


You don't believe hate speech exists, fine. I respectfully disagree. You seem to feel that Admiral McRaven is blowing smoke, fine. Again, I respectfully disagree.


BoytonBrother - 11/20/2018 at 08:13 PM

It’s irresponsible to talk about “the media” as if they are all the same. Illegitimate outlets intentionally do this to distract, mislead, and brainwash their audience to drink their kool aid.

There are obviously many legit outlets in all mediums, mainstream or not, that deserve to be recognized for their journalistic integrity. Besides, if you discredit “the media”, then how does one get their news and stay informed?


BIGV - 11/20/2018 at 09:42 PM

quote:
You don't believe hate speech exists, fine. I respectfully disagree.


That is correct, I do not. If only we lived in a world where no one spoke a word that others found "hateful". As long as speech does not call for action, it is free speech. Period.

Disagreement is fine and is the beginning of dialogue.


quote:
You seem to feel that Admiral McRaven is blowing smoke, fine. Again, I respectfully disagree.


I admit I know too little about this to comment.


2112 - 11/20/2018 at 10:07 PM

quote:
Besides, if you discredit “the media”, then how does one get their news and stay informed?


I think Trump wants you to get all your "news" from Fox News. I guess they don't count as the "media." Maybe that is something I can agree with Trump on. Fox News doesn't count as media (or journalist at all).


cyclone88 - 11/20/2018 at 10:10 PM

quote:
quote:
Really, what U.S. citizen or media company is actually against Free Speech?


Proclamations like "the media is the enemy of the people" make it a safe bet that free speech is under attack. I don't agree that this is a trifling matter. I am with Admiral McRaven on this, Trump's hostility to media is "perhaps the greatest threat to democracy in my lifetime."


DJT's freedom to say such a ludicrous thing & have it reported globally by US media outlets is the essence of free speech. IMO, the status of free speech has never been stronger. To me, the greater threat is the indifference & boredom many citizens express regarding whether the truth is being told. Those lists of "45 things DJT lied about" each day don't seem to galvanize people against him. Democracy in the US isn't suffering from a dearth of accurate & question-provoking information. It's suffering from "who cares?"


sckeys - 11/20/2018 at 10:33 PM

They should just stop reporting the “45 things” stuff as I think people can see it. It will have a cumulative effect at some point.


gina - 11/20/2018 at 10:46 PM

If they want to suspend Acosta from asking questions, they could do what they do at the United Nations with Palestine, give him Observer status, let him come to the briefings but not be able to ask questions if he has been suspended, that way he can still report on what went on, CNN could send another reporter to ask questions. It seems childish but having a reporter banned from doing his work is a serious matter also.

I am not picking on Jim Acosta, but all this legal stuff seems over the top. He can't have to feel that he is walking on egg shells asking questions that the President might not want to answer, but he has to frame the questions so that Trump can answer them. Remember the Presidential debates and the moderators trying to ask questions and keep the peace? Politics is a hot potato. Yes people have freedom of speech, and networks should be able to send whoever they want to the briefings. I just hope this doesn't get really ugly and divisive.

When reporters are unfairly punished it is an injustice, in this case it just seems like the whole thing has gotten out of hand. It could be worse, the American reporter, Jamal Kashoggi was killed by what is reportedly 15 Saudi's who were sent to the Saudi Arabian consulate in Turkey. There was audio taped evidence that Turkish officials have heard and it clearly has Kashoggi being tortured while being strangled for more than 7 minutes, and then reportedly being dismembered with body parts possibly being put in luggage to be taken to other places. There were reportedly 15 phone calls made from the consulate. Kashoggi's offense was bad mouthing a Saudi leader. The intelligence people do not connect him to the murder, but there are reports that intelligence personnell were used to kill him and use the typical put his torso in hydrochloric acid to dispose of that while the hands, feet, were taken elsewhere. They found Kashoggis watch, meaning he never left that embassy, despite video footage of someone exiting that compound wearing his clothes. [foreign media sources]

Journalism has changed in the other half of the world because of what happens to those reporters who anger world leaders. The US has been a place where reporters could feel safe to speak their minds, but the ugliness going on now may lead to stricter rules and less free speech. That is the risk.



[Edited on 11/20/2018 by gina]


gina - 11/20/2018 at 11:30 PM


POLITICS Trump says no new punishment for writer's murder Associated Press

WASHINGTON (November 20, 2018) — President Donald Trump says the U.S. will not levy additional punitive measures at this time against Saudi Arabia over the killing of Jamal Khashoggi.

Trump said in a statement Tuesday that the U.S. does not condone the killing of the U.S-based Saudi columnist, but that "foolishly" canceling $110 billion in arms sales — as some in Congress have suggested — would only mean that Saudi Arabia would go to other countries to acquire them.

Trump says the king and crown prince of Saudi Arabia "vigorously deny" any knowledge of the planning and execution of the Oct. 2 murder of The Washington Post columnist at the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul.

He says "it could well be that the crown prince had knowledge."

Trump says "maybe he did and maybe he didn't."


Remarks: So a US journalist is murdered, but there is a $110 Billion dollar arms deal, so we won't look too hard to find out who killed a US journalist.


tcatanesi - 11/20/2018 at 11:42 PM

quote:
he has to frame the questions so that Trump can answer them

I believe that is beyond Trump's capability.


jkeller - 11/20/2018 at 11:44 PM

quote:
quote:
he has to frame the questions so that Trump can answer them

I believe that is beyond Trump's capability.


Pictures with monosyllabic captions.


BrerRabbit - 11/21/2018 at 12:56 AM

quote:
If only we lived in a world where no one spoke a word that others found "hateful". As long as speech does not call for action, it is free speech. Period.


So if speech calls for action it isn't protected free speech? Pretty broad, but I will assume you mean calling for violence or repression, persecution. If I got that right, what would you call that kind of speech? Sounds like you are rankling about a buzzword like "hate speech" being used too freely, while acknowledging that some speech is unacceptable and dangerous.



[Edited on 11/21/2018 by BrerRabbit]


gina - 11/28/2018 at 12:45 AM

Acosta's pass is restored.


https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/weeks-after-losing-and- then-regaining-his-press-badge-acosta-gets-multiple-questions-at-briefing


BIGV - 11/28/2018 at 01:03 AM

quote:
quote:
If only we lived in a world where no one spoke a word that others found "hateful". As long as speech does not call for action, it is free speech. Period.


So if speech calls for action it isn't protected free speech? Pretty broad, but I will assume you mean calling for violence or repression, persecution. If I got that right, what would you call that kind of speech? Sounds like you are rankling about a buzzword like "hate speech" being used too freely, while acknowledging that some speech is unacceptable and dangerous.


"All green people are idiots and should not be allowed to Vote". (Free speech)... But it might be called "Hate speech" because it is mean and unnecessary! lol.... But, a first amendment protected phrase.

"I want you to grab a 2x4 and go over there and beat every green person you see to death with it"...Not protected, calls for action. And is not protected by the 1st amendment


BrerRabbit - 11/28/2018 at 01:54 AM

I agree, to a point. I don't see it as cut and dried as calling for action or not, though that is certainly a good standard. Gotta have some kind of baseline definition.

I feel that extremely dehumanizing humiliating, or threatening language that can terrorize or demoralize targets, speech that encourages others to attack, without directly calling for attack, can be hate speech once it reaches a certain point. Not gonna get into it more than this, pretty charged subject. But yeah, I get it, inciting action vs just blowing air, pretty good place to start.

So: "All green people deserve to be hit by 2x4s" is hate speech.
Perhaps to a lesser degree than "Go hit green people with 2x4s", but still hate speech, though not a direct call for action.


BIGV - 11/28/2018 at 02:05 AM

quote:
I agree, to a point. I don't see it as cut and dried as calling for action or not, though that is certainly a good standard. Gotta have some kind of baseline definition.

I feel that extremely dehumanizing humiliating, or threatening language that can terrorize or demoralize targets, speech that encourages others to attack, without directly calling for attack, can be hate speech once it reaches a certain point. Not gonna get into it more than this, pretty charged subject. But yeah, I get it, inciting action vs just blowing air, pretty good place to start.

So: "All green people deserve to be hit by 2x4s" is hate speech.
Perhaps to a lesser degree than "Go hit green people with 2x4s", but still hate speech, though not a direct call for action.


"Hate speech" today, as defined by whoever, sounds an awful lot like whining.


BrerRabbit - 11/28/2018 at 05:01 AM

Yeah well, nice attempt at an exchange of views anyway, a refreshing break from the usual antagonistic kneejerking that passes for dialogue in this joint.


cyclone88 - 11/28/2018 at 01:47 PM

Music lyrics, too, have been targeted for being inciting, unacceptable calls to action, & hate speech.

For anyone interested in general, jargon-free books on free speech, there's Floyd Abram's Soul of the 1st Amendment (2018), Anthony Lewis's Biography of the 1st Amendment (2010), & pretty much anything by Monroe Price regarding digital speech. There's also the classic John Stuart Mill essay On Liberty (1859).



BoytonBrother - 11/28/2018 at 02:49 PM

quote:
So: "All green people deserve to be hit by 2x4s" is hate speech.


Forget the label or legality of it. A person who has this mindset is clearly low-rent and should be ignored.


BIGV - 11/28/2018 at 04:16 PM

quote:
quote:
So: "All green people deserve to be hit by 2x4s" is hate speech.


Forget the label or legality of it. A person who has this mindset is clearly low-rent and should be ignored.


Absolutely agree. But there is a huge difference in the ability to ignore vitriol like this and calling for it to be banned because you find it offensive or "Hateful"


This thread come from : Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band
http://hittintheweb.com/

Url of this website:
http://hittintheweb.com//modules.php?op=modload&name=XForum&file=viewthread&fid=127&tid=147423