New White House Press Conference Rules Leave Door Open To Future Challenges

from the doesn't-change-much dept

As you've likely heard by now, the Trump administration has restored Jim Acosta's hard pass for media briefings, and CNN has accordingly dropped its lawsuit, returning the battle between Trump and the media to cold-war-status for the time being. But the White House also took the opportunity to issue new rules for its press conferences which, rather than truly addressing any of the issues that formed the basis of the lawsuit, appear to leave the door wide open for future abuses by Trump and challenges by the press:

(1) A journalist called upon to ask a question will ask a single question and then will yield the floor to other journalists;

(2) At the discretion of the President or other White House official taking questions, a follow-up question or questions may be permitted; and where a follow up has been allowed and asked, the questioner will then yield the floor;

(3) “Yielding the floor” includes, when applicable, surrendering the microphone to White House staff for use by the next questioner;

(4) Failure to abide by any of rules (1)-(3) may result in suspension or revocation of the journalist’s hard pass.

Basically, the White House seems to be setting itself up with the absolute bare minimum framework that it could kinda-sorta claim constitutes viewpoint-neutral due process the next time it wants to kick out a reporter. Functionally the rules don't seem to change much, since who gets the floor at White House press conferences has always ultimately been at the discretion of the person at the podium, but this formalizes the threat of pass revocation for those who don't play nice enough for Trump's tastes. Though many reporters are (rightfully) speaking out against the clear anti-press tone of the rules, and (correctly) pointing out that followup questions are one of the most critical components of good journalism, the reality is that this just puts things in a holding pattern until the next time Trump kicks someone out.

For one thing, the rules don't actually address any of the due process requirements set out in Sherrill v. Knight and expanded on by the judge's TRO restoring Acosta's pass, so the entire fifth amendment question still falls to how these rules get enforced:

The court in Sherrill held that this process must include notice, an opportunity to rebut the government's reasons and a written decision. And ... although the court in Sherrill did not have occasion to address it, when an important interest is at stake and when the government is able to provide this process before deprivation, it generally must do so.

Moreover, simply stating that the president has discretionary power doesn't eliminate the first amendment issue. Again, it will come down to how that power is used — specifically, whether it's used for viewpoint-based discrimination. If there is another incident and another legal challenge, these rules won't change much, and something like CNN's initial first amendment argument could easily still apply:

Defendants' justifications for impeding Plaintiffs' First Amendment rights are hollow and hardly sufficiently compelling to justify the indefinite revocation of Acosta’s White House credentials. Consequently, the only reasonable inference from Defendants’ conduct is that they have revoked Acosta's credentials as a form of content- and viewpoint-based discrimination and in retaliation for Plaintiffs' exercise of protected First Amendment activity.

The sole justification for Defendants’ conduct is their dislike for Plaintiffs’ coverage of the administration and critique of the President. But that is insufficient to justify such a substantial restriction on Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights.

Meanwhile, in the full statement laying out the new rules, Sarah Sanders laments that they were created with "a degree of regret" and are only necessary because they can tragically no longer rely on "a set of understood professional norms."

If only they cared so much about presidential norms.


Reader Comments

The First Word

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. icon
    Gary (profile), 21 Nov 2018 @ 6:50am

    Norms

    Professional Norms for the press are asking tough questions, and pestering for answers.

    Professional norm for the propaganda corp is to lob pre-authorized questions and applaud the answers.

    Trump doesn't like the press - as any good dictator will tell you, it's better to shoot/torture people who ask questions.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2018 @ 7:00am

    the WH Press Conferences and WH Press Corps have always been worthless to the Ameican public. Abolish them permanently.

    the conferences are dog & pony shows, where alleged journalists always fail to gather any worthwhile news. The WH staff/President use them as a PR tool to spin current issues.

    The job of the WH Press Secretary is to make the boss (any President) look good, by trumpeting good news and minimiziing/ignoring bad news. Citizens and taxpayers get nothing out of this expensive stage show.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2018 @ 7:10am

    Re: Norms

    Whatever. Acosta is an ass, acted like an ass, and feels entitled to force his assholeness onto others.

    There is no right to get an answer you like to any question you ask. And once you've asked your question, decorum and civility dictate that yield to the next questioner. You don't get to keep harassing until you're satisfied.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4. icon
    Gary (profile), 21 Nov 2018 @ 7:16am

    Re: Re: Norms

    Whatever.

    Yes, deflect away. Trump's bad behaviour isn't a problem - it's everyone else! :)

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2018 @ 7:22am

    Re: Re: Re: Norms

    You're the one deflecting. The issue is how Acosta acted, which got his pass revoked. I've never denied that Trump is also an asshole, but that doesn't excuse Acosta and CNN.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    John Cressman, 21 Nov 2018 @ 7:29am

    Stop the leftist drivel... please...

    THERE IS NO FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO BE IN THE PRESS ROOM. PERIOD. END OF DISCUSSION.

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

    If you show me ANYWHERE in that text where it says "...unfettered access to the President and Press Room", we can talk... until then... don't try to convince me that access to the press room has anything to do with the 1st amendment.

    Just like you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater - even though it's FREE SPEECH - you can't act like a fool in the press room and expect there not to be consequences.

    Geez people... grow up and put on the big boy pants.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7. icon
    TheResidentSkeptic (profile), 21 Nov 2018 @ 7:30am

    Thank you for coming!

    "...Here is your package for today's Press Conference - it contains the agenda, the questions which will be asked, the name of the reporter who will ask them, the answers that will be given, and for convenience, a CD with the approved transcript of the meeting. Please take your seats so we can begin on time. ..."

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8. icon
    Gary (profile), 21 Nov 2018 @ 7:48am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Norms

    No actually, "Acosta is an ass" is a non issue. His press pass was suspended for "Assaulting an intern."
    To say "Well he didn't actually assault her but he is an ass" is completely ignoring the false accusation that the suspension was over.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9. icon
    Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 21 Nov 2018 @ 7:53am

    Re: Re: Norms

    There are limited choices for what to do when the question asked is not answered. Ask again, maybe a bit differently, or more pointedly, or report the non-answer and mention that the answer given did not answer the question asked, then speculate as to why, maybe even wildly.

    Neither is likly to please the one who did not answer. Neither is actually uncivil. At some point, however, when it becomes clear that an answer is not forthcoming, then the questioner should just report the non-answer and speculate like hell about reasons why is might not have been answered. Which will likely piss the one who did not answer off greatly.

    Things might move from civil to uncivil once it becomes apparent that no answer is going to be given, and grandstanding just becomes rude, for both. The solution to this is just not call an that person for questions, not revoke access. In the instant case the 'cure' was worse than the 'disease' as one of the two involved could have been the bigger person and realized their other options.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2018 @ 7:56am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Norms

    The issue is how Acosta acted, which got his pass revoked.

    And restored. Seems like once the courts got involved, the white house decided someone might call them on their bullshit so they buckled like a belt. How he acted couldn't have been that big a deal. Otherwise they wouldn't have backed down. Unless they were afraid of Acosta...

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2018 @ 8:00am

    Re: Stop the leftist drivel... please...

    END OF DISCUSSION.

    Well I guess that's it then folks - I mean he put it all in caps and everything.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12. icon
    Bamboo Harvester (profile), 21 Nov 2018 @ 8:03am

    The "new" rules....

    ...are pretty much what we used to call "common courtesy".

    Where's the problem?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2018 @ 8:04am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Norms

    Clutch those pearls a little harder why don't you.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2018 @ 8:05am

    Re: Stop the leftist drivel... please...

    There is SO MUCH wrong in this comment that it's almost amusing, but you are so convinced of your own genius on this subject that I suppose it's not worth explaining. Short version: you don't know what you're talking about, and oh brother does it ever show.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15. icon
    Thad (profile), 21 Nov 2018 @ 8:05am

    Re: Re: Norms

    Acosta is an ass, acted like an ass, and feels entitled to force his assholeness onto others.

    The reason he feels entitled is that he is entitled.

    The First Amendment has no "unless you act like an ass" exception.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2018 @ 8:08am

    Re: Stop the leftist drivel... please...

    access to the press room has anything to do with the 1st amendment.

    If you can't see how the first amendment would be related to the place in the White House called THE PRESS ROOM, then I agree, there's no point in trying to convince you of anything.

    Just like you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater

    Sigh...

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17. icon
    Thad (profile), 21 Nov 2018 @ 8:08am

    Re:

    the WH Press Conferences and WH Press Corps have always been worthless to the Ameican public.

    I wouldn't say always. But I'd agree that that's been the case for decades.

    Abolish them permanently.

    I'd be fine with a cessation of the daily gaggle; I agree with your point that it's largely kabuki and spin. But as long as we're going to have it, the White House is subject to the First and Fifth Amendments.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2018 @ 8:10am

    Re: Re: Stop the leftist drivel... please...

    And he cited Schenck v. United States, too, which everyone knows is the definitive SCOTUS ruling on the limits of free speech.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19. identicon
    Glenn, 21 Nov 2018 @ 8:11am

    It's not unexpected that Trump doesn't understand what a press conference is. After all, he doesn't understand what the press is. But, then, he is dumb as wood.

    The press decides, not the person giving the "conference".

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2018 @ 8:11am

    Re: Re: Re: Stop the leftist drivel... please...

    Damn. Ninja'd by another AC.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2018 @ 8:15am

    END OF DISCUSSION

    Since it's the end of the discussion, I'll just flag you and move on.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22. icon
    James Burkhardt (profile), 21 Nov 2018 @ 8:16am

    Re: Re: Stop the leftist drivel... please...

    We need to start calling this Popehat's law. Like Godwins Law, if you pull that quote out in a free speech debate, you lose.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2018 @ 8:27am

    Re: Stop the leftist drivel... please...

    You're still just wrong, completely and utterly. You have no interest in educating yourself.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24. icon
    kP (profile), 21 Nov 2018 @ 8:28am

    OK, Anonymous Commenter, OK

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2018 @ 8:30am

    Re: Stop the leftist drivel... please...

    You don't decide that. The courts do. The judicial Power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under the Constitution.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26. icon
    Leigh Beadon (profile), 21 Nov 2018 @ 8:33am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Norms

    The issue is how Acosta acted

    Er... howso? This is a constitutional law question. The issue is how the government acted.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2018 @ 8:58am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Norms

    I think the whole constitutional thing is bullshit. A press pass is not constitutionally protected, only the freedom to speak/write/express.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28. identicon
    Anonymous Hero, 21 Nov 2018 @ 8:59am

    (4) Failure to abide by any of rules (1)-(3) may result in being killed, dismembered, then dissolved in acid.

    Too soon?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29. icon
    Thad (profile), 21 Nov 2018 @ 9:02am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Norms

    I think the whole constitutional thing is bullshit.

    The judge didn't.

    Guess which one of you gets to make legal decisions?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2018 @ 9:04am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Norms

    Right, because as we all see here on Tech Dirt, judges can never be wrong. All the judge did was grant a temporary order returning the credentials while the case moves forward.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2018 @ 9:09am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Norms

    Please provide your legally based argument, predicated on existing case law, as to why the judge was wrong. Please provide your legally based argument, predicated on existing case law, as to why the White House was in its rights to revoke the press pass.

    Please ensure to cite your sources. Naming the cases is a good start - even better would be links to the actual cases for others to review.

    We look forward to your presentation.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2018 @ 9:15am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Norms

    How about you show where the constitution guarantees press pass.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33. icon
    Leigh Beadon (profile), 21 Nov 2018 @ 9:15am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Norms

    I think the whole constitutional thing is bullshit. A press pass is not constitutionally protected, only the freedom to speak/write/express.

    You just expressed an opinion on constitutional law. Welcome to the whole point.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2018 @ 9:17am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Norms

    How about you show where the constitution guarantees press pass.

    It's right next to the line that says assault rifles are "arms."

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2018 @ 9:21am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Norms

    You are definitely mentally deficient. I won't waste my time with you, you can't even understand basic dictionary definitions of words.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36. icon
    Leigh Beadon (profile), 21 Nov 2018 @ 9:22am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Norms

    How about you show where the constitution guarantees press pass.

    The constitution does not "guarantee a press pass".

    It does, however, restrict the government from abridging the freedom of speech and of the press. In the nearly 250 years since it was written, there have been many cases big and small heard by many judges from district courts up to the Supreme Court - the final arbiter of what the constitution guarantees. These cases have resulted in thousands of pages of extensive, detailed reasoning about what the First Amendment (and the other amendments) actually guarantees.

    If you're not going to engage with that history of jurisprudence in the slightest, and are just going to keep saying "show me where the constitution says that", then you really need to grow up.

    Like, imagine something for me for a moment: let's say you were at dinner with a decorated judge from a federal appeals court who hears constitutional matters related to free speech and due process. Is this how you would talk to him about your opinions on law? Or would that be enough to cow you into a tiny bit of humility so you stop acting like your facile two-sentence takes make you the smartest person in the room?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2018 @ 9:28am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Norms

    If you don't like the answer, feel free to change the question. You asked a stupid question and got a stupid answer.

    That your question is stupid is not my fault.

    And for the record, you already "wasted your time" with me via your reply. So much for being mentally superior...

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2018 @ 9:31am

    Re:

    Ah! You may have found a way out. CNN/Acosta just need to buy several billion dollars in arms from the US government. Then they'll get a pass. (Pun intentional)

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2018 @ 9:33am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Norms

    Well, we should certainly respect the reasoning of someone who has clearly spent all of 5 seconds looking into the situation.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40. icon
    Leigh Beadon (profile), 21 Nov 2018 @ 9:39am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Norms

    you can't even understand basic dictionary definitions of words

    And as we all know, the dictionary is the final arbiter of law, and privately employed lexicographers are the fourth branch of government. You know those big shelves full of imposing books that you always see behind lawyers and judges? All dictionaries, every last one of them!

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41. icon
    Thad (profile), 21 Nov 2018 @ 9:39am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Norms

    How about you show where the constitution guarantees press pass.

    I'll do one better and show where the Constitution says "show me in the Constitution where it says you have a right to..." is a bullshit argument.

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2018 @ 9:43am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Norms

    So you do not, in fact, have a case to make for your position. Understood.

    Given the lack of supporting arguments to your position, I will simply move on, as your input is apparently mere uninformed opinion.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2018 @ 9:48am

    "Hard" pass?

    The story says "hard pass" without explaining it. What is it? Are there other types of White House press passes?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44. icon
    Thad (profile), 21 Nov 2018 @ 9:51am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Norms

    Right, because as we all see here on Tech Dirt, judges can never be wrong.

    Judges can be wrong, but their opinions are legally binding. Yours aren't.

    Further, "judges can be wrong" is a worthless statement. Yes, it's true. In the same way that, to borrow an analogy from Ken White, "some snakes are poisonous" is true.

    If you've been bitten by a snake, and you ask a doctor if it was poisonous, "some snakes are poisonous" is a useless, ridiculous answer.

    Similarly, if you're discussing a legal decision, and you ask if it was correct, "some legal decisions are wrong" is a useless, ridiculous answer.

    Unless you can explain why this judge was wrong in this case, you are not making a relevant argument.

    (Note: "Show me in the rulebook where it says a dog can't play basketball" is also not a relevant argument.)

    All the judge did was grant a temporary order returning the credentials while the case moves forward.

    That is the effect of the order, yes. It is not the substance of the order.

    Judges don't just issue orders without explanation or legal justification. The judge granted a temporary restraining order based on the constitutional justification that the White House failed to follow due process in its decision to revoke Acosta's press pass. Further, he outlined a list of steps that due process would entail.

    The judge's order was not the simplistic difference of opinion that you're making it out to be.

    The judge issued an order. It was specific and it was grounded in case law. "I think it's bullshit" does not refute the argument, and your "show me in the Constitution where it says..." deflection demonstrates that you're either being disingenuous or have a child's understanding of how constitutional law works.

    Put up or shut up, Mr. Coward. Address the actual arguments in the legal case and why you believe they were decided incorrectly, or be quiet and let the grownups talk.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45. icon
    Thad (profile), 21 Nov 2018 @ 9:54am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Norms

    you can't even understand basic dictionary definitions of words.

    Ah! There's your problem.

    You're looking for the meaning of the Constitution in the dictionary.

    That's not where the meaning of the Constitution is defined, Mr. Coward. It's defined by 200 years of case law and legal precedents.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2018 @ 9:54am

    Re: "Hard" pass?

    Google has failed me. For some reason the only explanations I could find were a Video of someone explaining what a hard pass is - why this isn't somewhere easily accessible in text form is beyond me. That or I'm looking for it in the wrong way. If someone's able to provide a source, please do?

    Conjecture:
    "Hard pass" represents more permanent access, usable for multiple events. All press conferences, etc.
    "Soft pass" if that's even the term uses, would probably represent a one-time pass for a single event.

    If anyone can confirm...

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47. icon
    Leigh Beadon (profile), 21 Nov 2018 @ 9:54am

    Re: "Hard" pass?

    A hard pass is granted after a journalist is put through a pretty heavy security screening, and basically gives them full access to all press briefings without going through an onerous security process every time.

    Journalists can also get passes to individual briefings, in which case they have to wait in line to go through security every time, and then be escorted at all times by secret service members.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2018 @ 10:03am

    Re: Re: Re: Stop the leftist drivel... please...

    That you lose the argument if you invoke the comparison isn't part of Godwin's Law proper; all the law itself states is that such a comparison becomes inevitable if a discussion is long enough.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2018 @ 10:11am

    Re: Re: Re: Stop the leftist drivel... please...

    How about: if you pull that quote out the government forcibly sterilizes you as an imbecile, as per the ruling where that quote comes from, which said they could legally do so ;)

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2018 @ 10:12am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop the leftist drivel... please...

    I wonder how many references we can smash together...

    What happens if the Nazis yell "Fire!" in a crowded press room?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2018 @ 10:13am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop the leftist drivel... please...

    What happens if the Nazis yell "Fire!" in a crowded press room?

    RICO

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2018 @ 10:15am

    The new rules...

    ...appear to be common courtesy.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2018 @ 10:16am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop the leftist drivel... please...

    You should have phrased it as a Betteridge violation:

    Is it illegal for Nazis to yell "Fire" in a crowded press room?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54. identicon
    Too Much Coffee Man, 21 Nov 2018 @ 10:17am

    Re: Re: Norms

    or "How dare anyone throw anything but softballs at the president."

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2018 @ 10:19am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Norms

    Show me where in the Constitution that a press pass is required in order to ask some elected dipshit questions.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2018 @ 10:34am

    Re: Don’t go away mad... just go away

    Who had fire in a crowded theatre on their bingo card?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57. icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 21 Nov 2018 @ 10:34am

    Re: Stop the leftist drivel... please...

    I'M HALPING!!!!!!!!!!!!

    https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/11/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-w rong-about-the-first-amendment/

    I think the guy with the miter MIGHT know a tiny bit more than you...

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58. icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 21 Nov 2018 @ 10:36am

    What if they showed up for a press conference & there was no press there?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2018 @ 10:36am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Norms

    There’s only one person acting like an entitled ass here and it ain’t Acosta.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60. icon
    James Burkhardt (profile), 21 Nov 2018 @ 11:52am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop the leftist drivel... please...

    You are right, I actually think Popehat's Law should be "Anyone who cites 'You can't yell fire in a crowded theater' in a 1st amendment argument proves they do not understand the laws and legal precedent involved and does not understand what the meaning of that quote and can immediately be ignored".

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61. icon
    Ninja (profile), 21 Nov 2018 @ 12:33pm

    So now we wait till Drumpf throws another tantrum because re can't articulate beyond "MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!" when pressed about any subject.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  62. icon
    That One Guy (profile), 21 Nov 2018 @ 3:29pm

    'No trying to hold our feet to the fire.'

    Given followup questions are all but required if the original answer is a dodge, this will effectively allow them to completely ignore any questions they don't feel like answering by prohibiting anything aimed at 'explaining' a (non-)answer and/or a rephrase to highlight the flaw in an 'answer'.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  63. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2018 @ 5:19pm

    Re: 'No trying to hold our feet to the fire.'

    Note that the "rules" don't say anything about getting your question answered.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  64. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2018 @ 5:21pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop the leftist drivel... please...

    Lock them in?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  65. icon
    Madd the Sane (profile), 21 Nov 2018 @ 7:07pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Norms

    Show me where in the Constitution where it says someone cannot ask an elected official "dipshit questions."

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  66. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2018 @ 6:57am

    Re: "Hard" pass?

    A hard pass is what a majority of voting Americans tried to give Donald Trump in 2016, before being overruled by the Electoral College.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  67. icon
    bhull242 (profile), 22 Nov 2018 @ 11:10am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Norms

    The “some snakes are poisonous” statement is also unhelpful regarding a snakebite because a poisonous snake is not necessarily venomous; it just means eating it is bad. ;)

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  68. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 22 Nov 2018 @ 1:26pm

    Re: Re: Re: Norms

    If it did, we’d have a hell of a lot of silenced bigots on our hands.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  69. identicon
    Diginess, 25 Nov 2018 @ 11:54am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Norms

    I think the White House does have to have rules such as the above. I also think the one question per reporter rule is fine. That would shut down people like Acosta monopolizing everyone's time while making sure they bring only their best questions. Next?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  70. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 26 Nov 2018 @ 2:28pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Norms

    I think it was 'elected dipshit' plus questions, instead of 'dipshit questions'.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Close
Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.