Trump's Orwellian argument for violating CNN's First Amendment rights

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Opinions

Trump’s Orwellian argument for violating CNN’s First Amendment rights

By Jennifer Rubin
Opinion writer
November 15 at 9:45 AM

“What President Trump is trying to do to CNN is straight out of [Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor] Orban’s playbook,” Ian Bassin, executive director of Protect Democracy, said in response to the Trump administration’s arguments in federal court on Wednesday.

The administration’s lawyers no longer claimed that CNN journalist Jim Acosta placed his hands on an intern, a pernicious untruth spread by press secretary Sarah Sanders via a doctored video. Instead, the lawyers offered a hodgepodge of authoritarian excuses: The media had to be respectful. Acosta was being disruptive. At times, the government’s lawyer sounded Orwellian:

“I don’t think anyone would dispute, if [Trump] wants to exclude all reporters from the White House grounds, he clearly has the authority to do that,” [Justice Department attorney James] Burnham argued at one point during the 110-minute hearing. “There’s no First Amendment right … for journalists to be there.”

He also argued that CNN’s and Acosta’s First Amendment rights weren’t injured by the decision to exclude Acosta — as CNN contends — because the network has dozens of other journalists with White House passes who could report in his place. He also said Acosta was free to keep reporting on Trump by watching television coverage of him outside the White House gates.

Watching TV is the same as reporting, you see. CNN’s rights can be trampled upon because its competitors are in the room. Huh?!

CNN’s lawyer and constitutional law guru Ted Boutrous blasted that reasoning. Having let reporters in, Trump could not exclude one whose reporting he didn’t like. (“The government’s now taking the position that [the president] can do anything he wants.”)
....

Jennifer Rubin writes reported opinion for The Washington Post. Follow https://twitter.com/JRubinBlogger

[CaptainTruth]

1. Imagine the reaction from the right if they applied that reasoning to the 2nd amendment.

Just rewrite the fourth paragraph a bit:

"He also argued that John Doe’s Second Amendment rights weren’t injured by the decision to exclude Doe from gun ownership, because there are dozens of other people who can own guns in his place. He also said Doe was free to enjoy the benefits of gun ownership by watching videos of other people owning and firing guns."

Watch the RW meltdown over that.

[Haggis for Breakfast]

2. Ozzy said it best

"We're going off the rails on a crazy train."

[ROB-ROX]

3. THE DEMENTED IS PUBLICLY CRAZY

I THINK THIS WILL MAKE A GOOD MOVIE SO THOSE WHO VOTED FOR THIS IDIOT CAN SEE FOR THEMSELVES JUST HOW CRAZY HE WAS IN PRIVATE AND PUBLIC. THE IDIOTS SO FAR HAVE MANY LAWYERS WHO CONTINUE TO LOSE LIKE THEIR FEARLESS LOSING LEADER....