WhatFinger

Reporters should be allowed to openly question judges after every decision they make from the bench. Judges are government officials too, and if the First Amendment applies in the White House, then it also applies to the court room

Freedom of the press or the right to disrupt, impugn, argue, bully and make accusations


By —— Bio and Archives--November 20, 2018

American Politics, News, Opinion | Comments | Print Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us

Freedom of the press or the right to disrupt, impugn, argue, bully and make accusations
After CNN filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, claiming that Jim Acosta’s first Amendment rights were violated by revoking his White House pass, a federal judge ruled that the Trump administration must restore his White House pass. Apparently freedom of the press means that Acosta and other so-called reporters have the right to enter the White House and badger, bully, accuse, impugn, argue, and express their own personal opinion to the president and his press secretary.

During the Obama mis-administration, freedom of the press was never in question because the mainstream media promoted Obama’s lies and covered up his wrong doing. The media was in bed with the Obama regime. It was a marriage of Marxists, and freedom of the press was nothing more than a joke. When the press becomes part of an evil treacherous government, they are no longer a free press. They are a government controlled propaganda machine not a free press.

.

Furthermore, many people, including some federal judges, have no idea what freedom of the press actually means. They think the term is open to interpretation, depending on their own understanding or lack of understanding of U.S. history. Originally, freedom of the press was meant to protect the press from government censorship - nothing more or less. It was intended to prevent the government from dictating what could be published by the press. It was never intended to allow miscreants like Acosta the right to enter the White House and disrupt press conferences, make accusations, argue, impugn or state personal opinion. Freedom of the press has nothing to do with the right to enter the White House or to have access to the President and members of his cabinet.

In fact, our founders never intended to give people, who call themselves journalists, the right to disrupt, accuse, badger and bully presidents and other government officials, who are open enough to allow them to ask questions. As a matter of fact, no government official has to allow questions from the press after making a public address. They allow questions to clear up any misunderstanding - not to answer false accusations and innuendo.

Moreover, President Trump is not the first president the press has attacked. Even Thomas Jefferson was attacked by a hostile press. In a letter to Samuel Smith, Jefferson used the word calumnies to describe the dirt printed about him by the press of his time. Calumnies are intentional and vicious false accusations of a crime or offense designed to damage the person’s reputation. In the letter, Jefferson stated:

“Were I to undertake to answer the calumnies of the newspapers, it would be more than all my own time and that of twenty aides could effect. For while I should be answering one, twenty new ones would be invented. I have thought it better to trust to the justice of my countrymen, that they would judge me by what they see of my conduct on the stage where they have placed me, and what they knew of me before the epoch since which a particular party has supposed it might answer some view of theirs to vilify me in the public eye.”

Since Jefferson’s time, the press has morphed into a Marxist fourth column supported by unelected government officials like the judge who ruled that revoking Acosta’s White House credentials violated his First Amendments rights. However, the First Amendment doesn’t apply in Acosta’s case. He can still watch the conference in real time on television, and he can still make his false accusations on CNN. The Trump administration has not censored Acosta in any way, nor has the administration told him that he can’t continue to make false accusations against the President on CNN. They just banned him from entering the White House and disrupting press conferences.

In Acosta’s case, the Constitution is being misused, and judges who can’t distinguish between a violation of the Constitution and Acosta’s violation of the Presidents right to orderly assembly should not be on the bench. If the judge’s ruling is any indication of the power of the First Amendment, then no judge has the right to closed courts or secret courts. Reporters should be allowed to openly question judges after every decision they make from the bench. Any reporter who disagrees with the judge should have the right to make false accusations, express their own opinion and disrupt the court. After all, judges are government officials too, and if the First Amendment applies in the White House, then it also applies to the court room. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.


CFPSubcribe
Charles Wills -- Bio and Archives | Comments

<em>Charles Wills is a retired Engineer.
Since retirement, he has devoted much of his free time to reading and researching
world and biblical history. He enjoys reading and collecting old books, especially
textbooks published before the turn of the 20th century, as well as writing about the
wealth of information hidden in them.<em>


Commenting Policy

Please adhere to our commenting policy to avoid being banned. As a privately owned website, we reserve the right to remove any comment and ban any user at any time.

Comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence and death, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal or abusive attacks on other users may be removed and result in a ban.
-- Follow these instructions on registering:
News from idealmedia.com