I agree intellectually, but I no longer give a damn. AP is a disgrace. They are propagandists, and don't even attempt to hide it.
Yes, propagandists have free speech rights, but I don't care about theirs any more than they care about mine. There's no reason I should.
There's an old saying, "You made your bed, now lie in it." AP made that bed, for others. Now they're complaining because they're forced to lie in it. I don't just hate propagandists; I also hate phony hypocrites. That's two strikes, AP. Quit while you're ahead.
"President Trump doesn’t have to speak to journalists he dislikes in one-on-one interviews. Nor is the White House obligated to hold press events open to multiple reporters. Once it does, however, it can’t constitutionally deny access for arbitrary or viewpoint-based reasons."
Yes, he can. The President retains the same Free Speech rights and Right of Free Association as any other citizen: he can talk to whomever he chooses and NOT talk to whomever he chooses, for any reason he chooses. It's HIS Speech. By all means, if you think there's a Constitutional argument for compelled Speech, which is what it would take to judicially mandate that he must speak to people against his will, then Trump can refuse to talk to the AP just as anyone else can. FIRE is literally taking the Anti-Free Speech side of this case just because you don't like Trump. It's a disgrace.
I am having a very hard time believing the same judiciary that acquitted Ludendorff of the act of treason he admitted in open court and convicted Hitler to not even five years in prison, but five years of "Festungshaft", an especially gentlemanly detention under mild conditions, in a conviction that reads like an endorsement, would then rigorously enforce laws against hate speech when the hate speech stems from the very same extremism they counted in Hitler's favor as "honorable motives".
I agree intellectually, but I no longer give a damn. AP is a disgrace. They are propagandists, and don't even attempt to hide it.
Yes, propagandists have free speech rights, but I don't care about theirs any more than they care about mine. There's no reason I should.
There's an old saying, "You made your bed, now lie in it." AP made that bed, for others. Now they're complaining because they're forced to lie in it. I don't just hate propagandists; I also hate phony hypocrites. That's two strikes, AP. Quit while you're ahead.
"President Trump doesn’t have to speak to journalists he dislikes in one-on-one interviews. Nor is the White House obligated to hold press events open to multiple reporters. Once it does, however, it can’t constitutionally deny access for arbitrary or viewpoint-based reasons."
Yes, he can. The President retains the same Free Speech rights and Right of Free Association as any other citizen: he can talk to whomever he chooses and NOT talk to whomever he chooses, for any reason he chooses. It's HIS Speech. By all means, if you think there's a Constitutional argument for compelled Speech, which is what it would take to judicially mandate that he must speak to people against his will, then Trump can refuse to talk to the AP just as anyone else can. FIRE is literally taking the Anti-Free Speech side of this case just because you don't like Trump. It's a disgrace.
I am having a very hard time believing the same judiciary that acquitted Ludendorff of the act of treason he admitted in open court and convicted Hitler to not even five years in prison, but five years of "Festungshaft", an especially gentlemanly detention under mild conditions, in a conviction that reads like an endorsement, would then rigorously enforce laws against hate speech when the hate speech stems from the very same extremism they counted in Hitler's favor as "honorable motives".
1A