Ruling In CNN Lawsuit Over Acosta Ban Expected Today

The judge presiding over the CNN lawsuit regarding Jim Acosta’s White House press access said that he will issue a ruling this afternoon. CNN filed suit on Tuesday and the first hearing in the case was held yesterday. CNN is asking for a temporary restraining order that would force the government to return Mr. Acosta’s White House access.

CNN’s attorney, Theodore Boutrous, said that the “judge was very, very, focused on the key issues of the case.”

In the two-hour hearing, Judge Timothy of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, a Trump appointee, probed CNN’s claim that Acosta’s ban was viewpoint discrimination rather than an action based on the reporter’s conduct. Boutrous cited the Trump Administration’s attack on CNN for “liberal bias” in a fundraising email sent after the revocation.

Boutrous also told the judge that the Trump Administration’s claim that Acosta put his hands on the White House intern who tried to grab his microphone was “absolutely false,” noting that the 28-page brief filed by the Justice Department does not allege that Acosta touched the aide.

James Burnham, the attorney representing the Justice Department, said that the White House didn’t need a reason to ban Acosta “because there's no First Amendment protection and the President has broad discretion.”

Burnham attacked CNN’s First Amendment claim, saying, “A single journalist's attempt to monopolize a press conference is not a viewpoint and revoking a hard pass in response to that is not viewpoint discrimination.”

At issue is whether the White House had valid cause to revoke Acosta’s press access. There is legal precedent from the 1977 case Sherrill v. Knight that “such refusal [for press access] must be based on a compelling governmental interest.” Judge Kelly must decide whether Acosta’s disruptive actions at last week’s press conference were sufficient to give the White House a valid reason for revoking his access. President Trump’s longstanding feud with CNN and Acosta give the news outlet ammunition to claim that the ban was directed at CNN because of their unfriendly coverage of the Trump Administration.

Numerous news organizations such as Fox News and the USA Today Network have filed briefs supporting CNN’s petition. “Secret Service passes for working White House journalists should never be weaponized,” said Jay Wallace, president of Fox News. “While we don’t condone the growing antagonistic tone by both the president and the press at recent media avails, we do support a free press, access and open exchanges for the American people.”

The ruling is expected at 3:00 p.m. Eastern time today.

Originally published on The Resurgent

UPDATE; 11/15/2018 4:02 PM Earlier today, we reported that a ruling would be coming down this afternoon on whether CNN would be granted temporary relief from the White House's decision to revoke press access for Jim Acosta following last week's press conference kerfuffle. We can now report that federal judge Timothy Kelly has delayed the hearing on the temporary restraining order until tomorrow.

CNN reported earlier today that Kelly had rescheduled the hearing for Friday morning at 10:00 a.m. Eastern. At the hearing, Kelly, a Trump appointee, will decide whether to issue a temporary order that restores Acosta's press access until the case is decided. Regardless of tomorrow's decision, CNN says that the case will go forward as they pursue permanent restoration of Mr. Acosta's White House media privileges.

​

Meet Alex Jones' Most Surprising Defender

In the wake of several social media giants banning Alex Jones, there was much rejoicing from the left. The enforced departure of the conspiracy guru was cheered as a victory by liberals across the country. There was, however, at least one prominent liberal who bucked the trend.

Bill Maher, the far left host of HBO’s “Real Time With Bill Maher” and “Politically Incorrect,” gave the tin-foil-hat-wearing talk show host a surprising defense last Friday. Maher began the segment by saying, “Alex Jones, who is not my friend and who tells crazy lies about me is thrown off Twitter, I think, and Facebook and a few other platforms.”

“Thank God!” exclaimed Jennifer Granholm, the former Democratic governor of Michigan and a current analyst for CNN, as the audience broke into cheers and applause.

“Well, if you’re a liberal you’re supposed to be for free speech,” Maher countered.

“That’s free speech for the speech you hate. That’s what free speech means. We’re losing the thread of the concepts that are important to this country,” he continued.

“If you care about the real American shit or you don’t. And if you do, it goes for every side. I don’t like Alex Jones, but Alex Jones gets to speak. Everybody gets to speak,” Maher said.

“Sure, but he doesn’t necessarily get to speak on Facebook or Twitter,” Charlie Sykes contributing editor for the Weekly Standard, responded.

“I get that,” Maher agreed.

“If a guy goes out – and this is not opinion -  if he engages in vile slander and fabrication about children who are murdered at Sandy Hook and he harasses the parents of children who were murdered at Sandy Hook … Facebook [and] Twitter don’t have an obligation to provide him a platform because they’re private companies.”

Both Maher and Sykes are absolutely correct. Censorship on social media is a free speech concern, but it is not a First Amendment issue. The First Amendment protects Americans from censorship by the government. It does not protect people from censorship by private companies who legally set the rules for behavior on the internet platforms that they own and operate.

“The way to get rid of hateful things is that sunlight is the best disinfectant,” Maher said, quoting Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis.

“A good example is the alt-right rally,” Maher continued. “They had their rally again. Twenty people showed up, okay? Not because we outlawed it, but because we let it happen the first time and these mental midgets found out, oh, it’s not so great when you do this in public because then you go back to the office and people don’t like you so much.”

While both sides of the political spectrum pay lip service to free speech, both sides are happy to censor the speech of political opponents. Liberal activists often shout down conservative speakers on college campuses and social media platforms are accused of bias against conservatives in enforcing their terms of service.

For their part, many on the right approve of using the power of government to regulate what they consider to be “fake news.” An Ipsos poll from earlier this month found that 43 percent of Republicans, a plurality, agree that “the president should have the authority to close news outlets engaged in bad behavior.” This would be a direct violation of the First Amendment.

I rarely get to agree with Bill Maher, but he is absolutely correct here. Freedom of speech should apply to all ideologies, but it is most important for speech that is unpopular or that we disagree with. Nothing in the Constitution or the US law prohibits us from having our beliefs challenged or guarantees the right to an uninterrupted echo chamber.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Alex Jones, The NFL and Freedom of Speech

The conservative world – or at least the right-wing world – was rocked this week with the news that Facebook, Apple and Spotify would ban Jones and his Infowars podcasts from their sites. Much of the right-wing reaction has focused on the question of freedom of speech and whether the internet giants have a duty to provide access to Jones’ conspiratorial ramblings.

The crux of the issue is that Facebook and the other companies are private entities. Because they are not part of the government, the First Amendment does not apply. The First Amendment only protects freedom of speech from being infringed upon by Congress, not private corporations.

In Facebook’s case, the waters are muddied by CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s claims that the social media giant is “a platform for all ideas” and that he is trying to “root out” bias in the company. If the company truly welcomes all ideas, then it should allow Jones to post his ideas, as reprehensible as they are, unless he violates the site’s terms of service.

Facebook should also set an objective standard to determine what is and isn’t “hate speech” and “bullying,” the vague terms that were used to justify Jones ouster from the site. The standards should be applied to both sides of the political spectrum. The list of political leftists who use hate speech is long and filled with people who are rarely held accountable for their words. Sarah Jeong is only the most recent example.

If freedom of speech is endangered by the left, many on the right are happy to attack the free speech rights of their political opponents as well. The most glaring example is the NFL kneeling controversy. President Trump overstepped his authority last year by calling on NFL team owners to fire players who kneeled to protest during the National Anthem. Many conservatives supported the president without stopping to think that the NFL, like Facebook, is a private organization.

In either case, the appropriate action for people who disagree with how the owners of Facebook and the NFL run their businesses would be to fire them. No one is forced to have a Facebook account or watch the NFL. If enough people vote with their wallets and stop sending their money to leftist companies, these policies may eventually change. The one thing that conservatives should agree on is that the government should not tell private companies how to run their business or what they should allow.

Unfortunately, that is not the case. Both sides seem perfectly willing to abridge the free speech rights of their political opponents. That includes many on Republicans who consider the media “fake news.” A new Ipsos poll found that a plurality of Republicans, 43 percent, believe that “the president should have the authority to close news outlets engaged in bad behavior.”

The idea that Big Government should referee the freedoms of speech and press is not new to the left, but should be an anathema to small government conservatives. At the very least, Republicans in favor of restricting speech should be aware that the government’s powers of censorship would almost certainly be turned against conservative outlets – or conspiracy sites like Infowars - by the next Democratic administration.

Where Voltaire famously said, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Modern Americans of all political stripes say, “What you say offends me, so you must be silenced.” The First Amendment applies to me, but not you.

Justice Louis Brandeis had a better idea. Noting that “Those who won our independence were not cowards” who feared political speech, Brandeis said that, for the problem of dangerous and evil speech, the “remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.” That’s a solution that all Americans should get behind.

Originally published on The ResurgentAlex Jones

Sasse Responds To Trump's Attacks On First Amendment

Ben Sasse’s last name has a silent “e,” but Twitter users can be forgiven for thinking the Nebraska Republican’s name is pronounced “sassy.” The adjective is an accurate description of the Sasse on the popular social media platform. Sasse most recently turned his sharp retorts toward President Trump after the president launched into what can only be described as a series of attacks on the First Amendment freedom of the press.

While attacking “fake news” has proven a popular shtick for the president, he reached a new level on Tuesday with a tweet that suggested that NBC News’ license should be “challenged” on the basis of their report that Trump had said that he wanted to increase the US nuclear weapons arsenal by a factor of 10 in a July meeting. The meeting prompted Secretary of State Tillerson to allegedly call the president a “f---ing moron.”

On a day when the sitting president of the United States directly attacked the First Amendment, the response from Republican officials was underwhelming. While Republicans lined up to denounce NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem, it was extremely difficult to find anyone in the GOP who was willing to go on record criticizing Trump’s statements. A piece in The Hill describing the backlash fails to cite a single sitting Republican. In fact, there seemed to be only one Republican responding to the president’s shocking remarks, the sassy Sasse.

It has only been a few weeks since Sasse wowed the non-alternative-right with his Twitter takedown of neo-Nazi Richard Spencer. The viral series of tweets brought adulation from traditional conservatives who felt left behind by the new Republican Party and the lack of condemnation for race-baiters like Spencer, who was an organizer of the riotous Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville. Given his history of using Twitter to communicate a strong conservative and pro-freedom message effectively, it should be no surprise that Sasse was the one to put the president’s remarks into constitutional perspective.

“Mr. President,” Sasse tweeted, “Are you recanting of the Oath you took on Jan. 20 to preserve, protect, and defend the 1st Amendment?”

[Mic drop.]

The tweet also contained a somewhat longer statement released by Senator Sasse. The full statement reads, “Mr. President: Words spoken by the President of the United States matter. Are you tonight recanting of the oath you took on January 20^th to preserve, protect and defend the First Amendment?”

Trump did not respond directly to Sasse, but later in the day, the president doubled down on his attack on the freedom of the press, saying in a White House press conference, “It's frankly disgusting the way the press is able to write whatever they want to write, and people should look into it.”

Another tweet from the president on Tuesday night was even more specific. “Network news has become so partisan, distorted and fake that licenses must be challenged and, if appropriate, revoked. Not fair to public!” the man sworn to defend the Constitution said.

As a refresher, the First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press….” The Bill of Rights makes no exception for “fake news,” biased reporting or even outright lies.

FCC rules do “prohibit holders of broadcast licenses from broadcasting false information concerning a crime or a catastrophe if the licensee knows the information is false; and the licensee knows beforehand that broadcasting the information will cause substantial ‘public harm.’” Stories critical of President Trump would not fall under this category.

As the president becomes increasingly bold in his attacks on the First Amendment, the big question for conservatives is where the other defenders of the Constitution are. The silence from other Republicans is deafening. 

Originally published on The Resurgent

Is President Trump Pushing For Return To Fairness Doctrine?

Many of today’s conservatives probably don’t remember the Fairness Doctrine. Many in the political world today never lived under it since it was repealed 30 years ago in 1987. If it still existed, the world of political talk radio would never have come into being. So why would President Trump want to bring it back?

In a series of tweets on Saturday morning, President Trump once again attacked the media, which is not unusual, but in two tweets he raised the question of whether the Administration should get “equal time.” In the first tweet, Trump said, “Late Night host are dealing with the Democrats for their very ‘unfunny’ & repetitive material, always anti-Trump! Should we get Equal Time?”

A few minutes later, in a second tweet, he said, “More and more people are suggesting that Republicans (and me) should be given Equal Time on T.V. when you look at the one-sided coverage?”

Equal time is essentially what the Fairness Doctrine was about. The Fairness Doctrine was implemented by the FCC under the Radio Act of 1927. In 1949, the FCC interpreted the law to mean that radio and television stations must provide contrasting views on issues of public importance and that, if a public personality was attacked on the air, they had to be given an opportunity to answer.

The policy was upheld in 1969 by the Supreme Court in Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC. In a unanimous decision, the Court ruled that the Fairness Doctrine did not violate the First Amendment and upheld the FCC rule that the subject of a personal on-air attack must be provided with a tape, transcript or summary as well as an opportunity to respond regardless of ability to pay for air time. In 1987, the FCC panel repealed the Fairness Doctrine with a 4-0 vote.

When Barack Obama took office in 2009, conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh feared that the new administration would reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. Instead, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski killed the policy permanently in 2011.

Now President Trump’s tweets seem to indicate that the president would like a new version of the Fairness Doctrine. Although Republican politicians do not seem to be lining up to support the president’s call for “equal time,” many of the president’s supporters vocally support the idea on social media.

Although it survived an encounter with the Supreme Court, the Fairness Doctrine has traditionally been viewed as an assault on the First Amendment by conservatives. It is difficult to imagine how conservative talk radio would survive if stations had to provide equal time to the liberal targets of conservative talkers every day. Advertising revenue would be lost and listeners driven away as Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and others got their equal time every day. It is no coincidence that The Rush Limbaugh Show premiered in 1988, the year after the Fairness Doctrine was repealed, kicking off the golden age of political talk radio.

The intention of the Fairness Doctrine was to protect free speech, but, as government regulations so often do, it had the opposite effect. Free speech blossomed with the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine where before, the Big Three networks had an effective monopoly on news and political commentary.

There is no shortage of news outlets who present the conservative side of stories. Even among the mainstream media there are the Wall Street Journal, the most successful newspaper in the country, the Washington Times and Fox News, to name just a few. There are many more conservative voices in the alternative media and blogosphere.

The traditional conservative answer to a problem with a free speech problem has been to call for more speech. It is troubling that Mr. Trump’s instincts are to call for more government oversight of speech and limitations on the First Amendment.

Originally published on The Resurgent