What's crazy is when asked at one point, Trump specifically referred to it as the "ban on free press". So rhetorically it's not like he's dancing around the constitutionality.
First term was somewhat coy. Second term is "yes we're violating the Constitution/law. What are you gonna do about it? Nothing? Ok cool I'll go do that again" over and over and over
I feel like this they're deliberately framing it this way to lay a trap for the courts, because accepting this framing doesn't really seem to leave a whole lot of legal wiggle room. After all, legally speaking, what is it exactly, if not a privilege? If it's a right, then basically any citizen should be allowed in, subject to fair/non-discriminatory constraints, like capacity... is/should that be the case? If it's neither then what is it?
I mean he blatantly said it was because of their reporting. That’s an in the nose first amendment violation. Full text of his ban announcement is below which was surprisingly hard to find between his firehose of shit in truth social and every media report about it only quoting fragments of sentences.
I am proud to announce that, effective immediately, I am banning Fake News CNN, MSNOW (who recently changed their name from MSNBC due to lack of viewership and credibility!), and Politico (The recipients of an illegal and ridiculous $8 Million Dollar subscription, an All Time Record, directly from the United States Government, under Crooked Joe Biden, in order to keep them “alive.” Seems like corruption to me!), from the White House as a result of their constant “reporting” FAKE NEWS! Media Outlets shouldn’t be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES when they’re covering the President of the United States, the Trump Administration, or the United States of America. Other Fake News Media Outlets to follow. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMP
Some in the administration certainly are capable of 4D chess, but this event seems like the standard playbook: king got mad, and everyone is scrambling for a non-insane post hoc justification.
Even some Fox News commentators have come out against it, because they do not want an illegal precedent where they could be barred from a Democratic administration.
What is really incredible to me are the lifetime politicians who so quickly sacrifice their integrity to defend these actions. There are few cases that are so clear cut.
You’re being ridiculous if you’re down to the level of saying you don’t have a right to life because there’s no guarantee.
In that case there’s no rights to anything, you just don’t believe in them, and you can stop being coy about by only calling out individual instances people refer to as a right
Your original comment technically isn’t even wrong, it’s just the definition of “right” written in a backwards ass way. Unfortunately for you this latest comment proves that this was just an accident!
What's crazy is when asked at one point, Trump specifically referred to it as the "ban on free press". So rhetorically it's not like he's dancing around the constitutionality.
First term was somewhat coy. Second term is "yes we're violating the Constitution/law. What are you gonna do about it? Nothing? Ok cool I'll go do that again" over and over and over
Absolute treason
I feel like this they're deliberately framing it this way to lay a trap for the courts, because accepting this framing doesn't really seem to leave a whole lot of legal wiggle room. After all, legally speaking, what is it exactly, if not a privilege? If it's a right, then basically any citizen should be allowed in, subject to fair/non-discriminatory constraints, like capacity... is/should that be the case? If it's neither then what is it?
I’m curious how a Jan. 6 insurrectionist would answer this question.
Any pardoned felons here?
Courts navigate this fine line already even for their own courtrooms. There are restrictions on rights like time/place restrictions, for instance.
No, it’s not a problem. The government can’t grant or withdraw a privilege for impermissible reasons.
I mean he blatantly said it was because of their reporting. That’s an in the nose first amendment violation. Full text of his ban announcement is below which was surprisingly hard to find between his firehose of shit in truth social and every media report about it only quoting fragments of sentences.
Some in the administration certainly are capable of 4D chess, but this event seems like the standard playbook: king got mad, and everyone is scrambling for a non-insane post hoc justification.
Even some Fox News commentators have come out against it, because they do not want an illegal precedent where they could be barred from a Democratic administration.
What is really incredible to me are the lifetime politicians who so quickly sacrifice their integrity to defend these actions. There are few cases that are so clear cut.
Rights must be demanded and defended constanrly, otherwise some tin pot dictator will take them without much of a fight.
Do you what your rights or not?
If someone else can take it away it was never a right
People can take your life from you, do you not have the right to live?
No you don’t, thousands of people are murdered everyday
There is nothing and nobody guaranteeing your life
That's not what a "right" is.
There's perfectly legitimate ways to argue against the existence of natural rights (see Bentham), but this strawman ain't it.
At least someone’s done some research on the topic
My guess is that the crowd here needs to go and actually do a little bit more philosophical reading maybe start with deleuze
You’re being ridiculous if you’re down to the level of saying you don’t have a right to life because there’s no guarantee.
In that case there’s no rights to anything, you just don’t believe in them, and you can stop being coy about by only calling out individual instances people refer to as a right
Do you really think this is an interesting line of interrogation?
When we speak of rights, we speak of limits that should apply to our government and the actions of others, not of iron laws of the universe.
Your original comment technically isn’t even wrong, it’s just the definition of “right” written in a backwards ass way. Unfortunately for you this latest comment proves that this was just an accident!
The right to say useless crap on the internet seems to be in no immediate danger.
That’s not a right either
If you frame it that way we have hardly any rights at all though - it would completely preclude rights like free speech, assembly, fair trial etc
So what’s the use in using that framing? What good is it?