CNN sues Trump over Acosta

[Zkribbler]

CNN has filed suit against Trump for revoking Acosta's press pass, violating CNN & Acosta's 1st Amendment rights & right to due process.

The White House promises a vigorous defense and began by changing its justification from putting hands
on a female intern to hogging the microphone.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I didn't know CNN was getting into comedy. I guess with the decreasing relevance/trustworthiness of mainstream media in general they have to diversify.

Though I suppose this is right up their alley for "generating news".

 

[Lexicus]

I didn't know CNN was getting into comedy.

Explain por favor?

 

[JollyRoger]

I didn't know CNN was getting into comedy.

 

[FriendlyFire]

CNN has filed suit against Trump for revoking Acosta's press pass, violating CNN & Acosta's 1st Amendment rights & right to due process.

The White House promises a vigorous defense and began by changing its justification from putting hands
on a female intern to hogging the microphone.

Gaslight <---------- we are here now
Obstruct
Project

GOP chairwoman says Acosta still has White House access. But he doesn't.
From CNN's David Shortell:

Parroting CNN's motto, "facts first," GOP Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel called the network's First Amendment lawsuit a "political stunt" and said Acosta still has access to the White House through a daily pass.
"Every one of his colleagues still has access to the WH, as does the reporter himself via a daily pass. #FactsFirst," McDaniel wrote on Twitter.
In fact, as CNN said in court documents Tuesday, the White House denied Acosta's application for a day pass on November 8, the day after his hard pass was revoked following the post-midterms news conference.

https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/cnn-sues-trump-acosta-reaction/index.html

 

[HoloDoc]

Fake Sues.

I'm unsure of the legality around this issue (I don't know anything about the White House press gallery), but he rather obviously didn't do anything wrong or illegal, and the White House's hilarious doctored ciders and changing excuses seem like a toddler inventing stories on the fly to explain where the cookies went.

 

[Broken_Erika]

...like a toddler inventing stories on the fly to explain where the cookies went.

Snerk ate them.

 

[Dachs]

The complaint is here, for any/all interested.

I'm not a lawyer by any stretch of the imagination, but some people who are lawyers have pointed people toward footnote 27 in this guide produced by the Berkman and Shorenstein Centers. Relevant excerpt:

A few litigants have successfully challenged the denial of media credentials, though usually under special circumstances. See, e.g., Sherrill v. Knight, 569 F.2d 124, 129 (DC Cir. 1977) (denial of White House credential violated the First and Fifth Amendments when done without any indicated standards or an opportunity to respond); United Teachers of Dade v. Stierheim, 213 F. Supp. 2d 1368 (S.D. Fla. 2002) (school's exclusion of teacher union publication from press room violated First Amendment as a viewpoint-based discrimination); Quad-City Cmty. News Serv., Inc. v. Jebens, 334 F. Supp. 8, 17 (S.D. Iowa 1971) (denying press credentials for reasons that were "either vague or completely unknown" violated Fourteenth Amendment due process); Weinberg v. Chicago Blackhawk Hockey Team, Inc., 653 N.E.2d 1322, 1325 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995) (hockey magazine stated cause of action under Illinois antitrust law when the Chicago Blackhawks refused the magazine access while simultaneously publishing their own competing magazine); but see Wisc. Interscholastic Athletic Ass'n v. Gannett Co., Inc., 658 F.3d 614 (7th Cir. 2011) (restricting coverage of sporting events and other substantive coverage as condition of press access did not violate First Amendment).

The CNN complaint mentions Sherrill v. Knight explicitly. Then, later, on page 12:

Neither the White House nor the Secret Service has provided Acosta any formal notice of the reasons for, opportunity to be heard regarding, or opportunity to challenge, the decision to revoke his hard pass.

Seems like this isn't a frivolous lawsuit, then!

...Doesn't mean they'll win, of course.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

^ Most likely, they'll simply be forced to give the standards for the boot (standards that should have been provided already) and retain the ban.

Acosta is something of a joke in terms of being a "journalist" (which has been voiced by left and right media alike) but it's true that this should still be handled properly.

 

[Estebonrober]

but it's true that this should still be handled properly.

You do realize you are talking about the Trump administration.

 

[Dachs]

^ Most likely, they'll simply be forced to give the standards for the boot (standards that should have been provided already) and retain the ban.

Acosta is something of a joke in terms of being a "journalist" (which has been voiced by left and right media alike) but it's true that this should still be handled properly.

What standards are those? He was kicked out for working for CNN and asking questions that Trump didn't like.

 

[HoloDoc]

What standards are those? He was kicked out for working for CNN and asking questions that Trump didn't like.

Exactly. Clearly unacceptable behaviour.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

What standards are those? He was kicked out for working for CNN and asking questions that Trump didn't like.

Whatever standards are used, they must be stated and applied consistently. Otherwise Acosta has a case.

Refusing to give up the mic and resisting attempts to retrieve it are a bad look though. There are other, legitimate reporters in that room from either side of the political spectrum.

 

[Silurian]

Whatever standards are used, they must be stated and applied consistently. Otherwise Acosta has a case.

Refusing to give up the mic and resisting attempts to retrieve it are a bad look though. There are other, legitimate reporters in that room from either side of the political spectrum.

So what standards will be applied.

If you ask an awkward question you do not get to ask a second question?

Who decides what an awkward question is?

Or do they stop second questions for everybody so it is "fair".

But then what happens if the first question is misunderstood?

 

[Oerdin]

CNN has filed suit against Trump for revoking Acosta's press pass, violating CNN & Acosta's 1st Amendment rights & right to due process.

The White House promises a vigorous defense and began by changing its justification from putting hands
on a female intern to hogging the microphone.

I hope this works.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

So what standards will be applied.

If you ask an awkward question you do not get to ask a second question?

Who decides what an awkward question is?

Or do they stop second questions for everybody so it is "fair".

But then what happens if the first question is misunderstood?

If you physically refuse to give up the microphone after x period of time (best defined in advance) would be an example of such a standard.

Another standard, that I would extend to political debates in general, is to penalize people who interrupt during someone else speaking/outside their time. Especially if people keep doing this after a warning.

Acosta is something of a dbag who has yelled out of turn, made statements without questions, and acted as an embarrassment to proper journalism at more than one event. Even so, the standards need to be applied fairly.

 

[warpus]

American politics, season 175. And I don't have any popcorn left

 

[Silurian]

If you physically refuse to give up the microphone after x period of time (best defined in advance) would be an example of such a standard.

Another standard, that I would extend to political debates in general, is to penalize people who interrupt during someone else speaking/outside their time. Especially if people keep doing this after a warning.

Acosta is something of a dbag who has yelled out of turn, made statements without questions, and acted as an embarrassment to proper journalism at more than one event. Even so, the standards need to be applied fairly.

So you support politicians who do not answer the question.

 

[Farm Boy]

I think it was said Parliament is like Congress but with a two drink minimum.

Rules of order are an appropriate mandate to formulate and demand compliance on.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

So you support politicians who do not answer the question.

If a politician doesn't answer the question presented in debates I consider it a failure mode. Since this is typically all sides in political debates it's hard to stomach watching them.

Rules of order are an appropriate mandate to formulate and demand compliance on.

This. I'm desensitized to it by now but for supposed discussion between adults regarding policy that governs how we live our lives these sessions can get pretty childish.

I agree it is important that the rules of order are clear and consistently enforced and that in this regard Acosta's situation was mishandled. The better way to oust him would have been to pre-define new rules of order and only then throw him + others out only if said rules were ignored.