“The White House says The Associated Press restricts access to the elliptical offices of Associated Press journalists as they refuse to go along with the White House claim that the Gulf of Mexico is called the “American Gulf.” management I tried to exclude it Fox News from a Pool Pool interview with the administrator. Does it violate the First Amendment? Some thoughts:
[1.] The administration is not required to initially amend the company to provide press conferences or interviews. But the problem is that once it starts, it may exclude the press based on its perspective, or perhaps it may exclude it from the use of terms that are considered to be based on unfair coverage or to express the perspective. It’s whether it’s.
[2.] It seems pretty clear that government officials can choose to be able to sit together for an interview in a perspective-based way. The president may choose to interview journalists who have opinions he likes and refuse to speak to opinions he dislikes. In fact, government officials may even order employees not to speak to certain reporters without violating their rights. Baltimore Sun V. Ehrlich (April 2006). (The decision did not discuss whether such an order could violate the rights of employees, but that is actually OK in the current controversy.)
Even a precedent that recognized the rights of journalists to access press conferences has made this clear. “Also, the President’s discretion to grant interviews and briefings with selected journalists is not challenged. He has given everyone this to him, as the President allows interviews with some authentic journalists. It would certainly be unreasonable to suggest that we must give opportunities.” Cheryl vs. Night (DCCir. 1977).
[3.] It is also clear that even at large press conferences, government officials can choose to ignore questions expressing their dislikes, or ignore questioners who express their views. TGP Communications, Inc. v. Sellers (9th Cir. 2022) This states that “permits Conradson to attend briefings of press pending resolutions on merit” (a court ordered) “No one is obligated to speak to him.” “Therefore, we do not bias the appellant.” And it is merely a special case of a broader proposition; Minnesota BD. For communication. University v. Night (1984),
Under the First Amendment and the case law of this Court, interpreting it is that the right to say, associate, and petition is that government policymakers will hear or respond to personal communications on public issues. It suggests that you are requesting.
[4.] This is said, and there is a precedent (Cheryl, TGPand John K. Masiver Inst. Public Policy v. In the case of Evers (7thCir. 2021)) recognizes the right not to be excluded based on the perspective of a large press conference, generally open to a wide range of reporters. These precedents treat these press conferences more or less like “limited public fora” and “private fora.” The government cannot impose limits on perspective. In these precedents, reporters may not be excluded from press conferences based on the perspective of their organization, but the government is not obligated to answer their questions.
[5.] But what about mid-term events that are only open to small reporters’ sets? The Air Force clearly has it 13 Press Sheetand I also limit it to the oval office.
John K. Masiver Inst. Even such events seem to suggest that reporters cannot be chosen in a perspective-based way. The appeals court there even dealt with gatherings with elected reporters. , when discrimination against perspective is prohibited. And even this concerns the governor’s press conference, “already limited to groups of invited members of the members accessed” already “limited to limited access press conferences and other press conferences.” “The Press is invited. (“Because this was a small event, hundreds of other journalists and media representatives were not invited to attend.”)
I don’t know if this is correct or not. When “only a few members of the media are invited,” I think government officials should be able to choose who they want to have a conversation. They look closer to a one-on-one interview. Here, officials can choose who to talk to based on their perspective. Answer their questions. And it’s hard to know exactly where John K. Masiver Inst. They would have drawn a line. I checked the briefs on this case and couldn’t understand how big the press conference outline was, but the court concluded that the governor’s standards were point-to-point neutral for either event. , there was no need to discuss the issue in detail.
[6.] So I think the best way I can say to appearing in Air Force 1 and the Oval Office is that the first revision analysis is unstable (especially all of the ones I quote above). Since the case, Minnesota BD. of communication. University v. Nightnot a Supreme Court case, but merely a federal appeal case. I have also deliberately focused on a more influential federal appeal decision rather than an uninfluential federal court decision). But that’s my tentative analysis. I’d love to hear what other people think.
As a policy issue, I think exclusion from AP is unsound. That’s because I think their position on the Gulf question is at least defensible and perhaps right. But even if the AP is clearly wrong, I think it would be a rather poor justification to rule out key news organizations with millions of American readers. However, the above paragraph focuses solely on constitutional questions.
Please refer to the clearer view than mine Fire’s recent statement About the controversy.
