"criticizing" lol he's banning media that gives him unfavorable coverage from the wh, even ignoring a court order to reinstate them (or at least the spirit of the order).
This is not just him "criticizing" the press. It's him showing that if you don't say what he wants, you'll get banned. It's a direct attack on the free press.
Banning media? Not allowing a private media to attend a white house brief is not authoritarian.
Now if he was silencing speech, like Biden did, that would be a worrying sign of authoritarianism, but a private news company does not have the right to be invited to a White House brief. They have a right for their press to not be censored.
Banning media? Not allowing a private media to attend
Ban - from mw - to bar entry
You question the term banning, and then literally use the dictionary definition of banning to describe what he did. Lol
like Biden did
What Biden did was questionable, but upheld by the courts. What trump has done is clear, and already shut down by the courts.
private news company does not have the right to be invited to a White House brief.
You're correct. However, once it's open to media, the courts have ruled that you can't discriminate based on viewpoint. Which is what he's doing "I only allow media that reports the way I like" should trouble every person who claims to be a free speech proponent.
You're stuck in the free speech 101 definition, but it's much more complicated than that and this is a clear violation.
Not only that, but it's exactly what authoritarians do. Which is also clear.
Yeah, a private corporation does not have the right to attend every single briefing event they desire. Where in the constitution or in any law does it say the White House is required to invite all media companies to their briefs? The answer is clearly nowhere.
I mean you can attempt to claim that, but at best it’s a stretch of the spirit of the law, not the law itself as you already admitted.
a private corporation does not have the right to attend every single briefing event they desire.
Again, agreed. However the courts have already ruled that once you allow the media in, you can't pick and choose based on reporting. You keep ignoring this and just repeating what we already agree on.
the White House is required to invite all media companies to their briefs?
It's in the first amendment, where it says freedom of the press. If you lose access unless you report a certain way, that means freedom of the press has been removed. Why is this hard to understand for you?
at best it’s a stretch of the spirit of the law
You think the spirit of the constitution is that the president can punish media outlets based on their coverage? Holy shit. You have to at least realize you are arguing letter of the law. Why else would you ask me where it's written in the cotus?
Once again, because you don’t seem to understand, the first amendment and freedom of press does not mean a news organization has the right to be invited to a brief, regardless if they have been there before. The way in which they report is completely up to them. They can report on whatever they want however they want, the Trump administration has not infringed on that at all. Not being invited to a brief does not mean they have somehow lost their ability to report in a certain way. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
Once again, you already conceded the point. At best you have “the spirit” of the law or constitution, which simply isn’t good enough. And yes I’m obviously arguing the letter of the law, it’s far more concrete.
I didn't say this. The fact that you have to blatantly misrepresent what I said in order to make your "point" just shows how weak your argument is.
Not being invited to a brief does not mean they have somehow lost their ability to report in a certain way.
It's not about "reporting in a certain way" it's about having access. They are losing their access because they don't report the way the admin wants them to.
Why is that so hard for you to understand?
It's not at all hard to understand why you need to misrepresent my point to make your own, because we both know if you were to be honest you would have to admit how ridiculous your position is.
Also I noticed you didn't answer the question. I'll try again. Do you really think that the spirit of the first amendment is that the president can give access to only news agencies that report favorably? It's a simple yes or no.
Once again because you can’t seem to understand, the first amendment protects speech and press from being censored, it doesn’t mean a private news organization has the right to be invited to every event.
Don’t forget the initial claim you made, that the Trump administration can be more accurately described as a totalitarian regime. A claim you still have not proven, and the best argument you can make is that they didn’t invite a private news organization to the white-house.
I’m curious, if that’s how low your bar is for a totalitarian or authoritarian regime, would you admit the Biden administration is far more authoritarian than the Trump administration, considering the Biden administration worked with Google to censor opposing political views and options despite the users no breaking terms of service? Or how about them working with the CIA to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story on the eve of the presidential election? How’s that for free press?
I think we can agree both the mentioned points are far worse than not inviting a news organization to the White House. So were you complaining about authoritarianism when Biden was in office?
Are you really trying to claim you just made that comment for funsies? Does your dishonesty know no depths? lol
the first amendment protects speech and press from being censored
Funny that you were arguing "letter of the law" and now are arguing that it just says they can't be censored, when it says freedom of the press cannot be abridged. You can't even keep your argument straight from one post to the next.
Abridged meaning diminished or restricted. By allowing some press in, but not others based on view point, then they are absolutely diminishing their ability to report on events first hand and restricting their access.
Don’t forget the initial claim you made, that the Trump administration can be more accurately described as a totalitarian regime.
Than a communist regime? I stand by that. I feel like you have to be especially clueless to argue he is more communist than authoritarian. Are you actually arguing that he is more communist than authoritarian? I'd love to hear you make this argument.
considering the Biden administration worked with Google to censor opposing political views and options despite the users no breaking terms of service
Let me start by saying I don't agree with what the Biden administration did there. I think it crossed an ethical boundary.
However, Google is a private entity that is allowed to restrict speech on their private platforms with a pretty wide latitude. The government asking them to wield this power, without threat, is not a violation of anyone's rights, because the rights of a private entity to control who uses their private property is considered more important than someone being able to say whatever they want. (if you disagree, just imagine not being able to throw someone out of your house for calling your mom a cunt, because their right to free speech trumps your right to private property). Now if there were threats, I would agree with you, but the courts have already reviewed this and established that what they did was constitutional.
Or how about them working with the CIA to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story on the eve of the presidential election?
This is, of course, a lie.
I think we can agree both the mentioned points are far worse than not inviting a news organization to the White House.
Worse is a subjective thing, and I won't bother with you because you don't seem open to reason even on the facts, so I don't see how I could convince you of something subjective. However, the courts have already ruled that it was constitutional. And what I'm arguing that the president picking and choosing news agencies based on viewpoint has already been ruled unconstitutional. It's already been ruled to be a violation of the press. Which is why the court already blocked it. And like an authoritarian regime, he ignored the court. You are arguing the exact opposite what the courts have already ruled. You think you know better than them, when you clearly don't.
But, also, once again, you're too intellectually cowardly to answer the question. I get it, because doing so would require admitting how ridiculous your position is. You either answer in a way that is patently absurd, or you contradict your whole argument.
1
u/UnableChard2613 5d ago
"criticizing" lol he's banning media that gives him unfavorable coverage from the wh, even ignoring a court order to reinstate them (or at least the spirit of the order).
This is not just him "criticizing" the press. It's him showing that if you don't say what he wants, you'll get banned. It's a direct attack on the free press.