The President’s War on Fox

Michael Drew in reply to Mark Thompson says:

“Being denied access to a press conference based solely on viewpoint is most definitely a First Amendment violation. There is in fact no room for debate on that point.”

We can assume, then, that the lawsuit will be filed and won or successfully settled. Care to place wagers on when that will happen? I’ll bet a $100 contribution to The League of Ordinary Gentlemen that it never does.Report

Michael Drew in reply to Mark Thompson says:

“Rather, we are presented with a situation where the White House has voluntarily decided to establish press facilities for correspondents who need to report therefrom. These press facilities are perceived as being open to all bona fide19 Washington-based journalists, whereas most of the White House itself, and press facilities in particular, have not been made available to the general public. White House press facilities having been made publicly available as a source of information for newsmen,20 the protection afforded newsgathering under the first amendment guarantee of freedom of the press, see Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 681, 707, 92 S.Ct. 2646, 33 L.Ed.2d 626 (1972); Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 829-35, 94 S.Ct. 2800, 41 L.Ed.2d 495 (1974), requires that this access not be denied arbitrarily or for less than compelling reasons. See Southeastern Promotions v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546, 95 S.Ct. 1239, 43 L.Ed.2d 448 (1975); Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 58 S.Ct. 666, 82 L.Ed. 949 (1938). Not only newsmen and the publications for which they write, but also the public at large have an interest protected by the first amendment in assuring that restrictions on newsgathering be no more arduous than necessary, and that individual newsmen not be arbitrarily excluded from sources of information.
[…]

“In our view, the procedural requirements of notice of the factual bases for denial, an opportunity for the applicant to respond to these, and a final written statement of the reasons for denial are compelled by the foregoing determination that the interest of a bona fide Washington correspondent in obtaining a White House press pass is protected by the first amendment. This first amendment interest undoubtedly qualifies as liberty which may not be denied without due process of law under the fifth amendment.”

Bona fide…newsmen…newsgathering…correspondents. These are the qualifying criteria by which newsgatherers are distinguished from the general public and protected from arbitrarily being prevented from being in the White House press room or other restricted areas (where officials can allow those who they choose by whim to be). The issue of Fox’s correspondents’ bona fides as newsmen/getherers is what the administration, if it were to challenge their press passes which I am not clear it has done or intends to do, would raise in such a challenge. If they are not bona fide news gatherers (by a standard that would presumably be hashed out in litigation), then the White House can exclude them arbitrarily by the logic of this decision (which in fairness is all I looked at, so more could certainly be at play here).Report