UPDATE: Today, Friday, Nov. 16, the federal judge ordered the White House to restore Jim Acosta's press pass. Here's the link: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/16/business/media/cnn-acosta-trump.html
Check out the update and read the rest of this post and the articles attached for background. -- gdm
You may have been following the news about a clash at the White House between President Trump and CNN reporter Jim Acosta last week. This resulted in the White House revoking Acosta's press credentials. Now, CNN has been joined by other media outlets, including Fox News, to fight the press revocation.
A decision was on a temporary order to restore Acosta's press pass was expected today, Thursday, Nov. 15, but the federal judge postponed it until tomorrow.
Here's a CNN news report with some background: https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/15/media/cnn-lawsuit-decision-postponed/index.html
Here's another report from NPR: https://www.npr.org/2018/11/15/668045729/decision-expected-thursday-in-cnn-suit-over-white-house-revoking-acostas-press-p
Once you get a chance to read these news accounts, return here and share your thoughts about this. Is there a right or wrong here? Are First Amendment rights under attack? Or, does the White House have the power and authority to grant and reject press passes as the president sees fit?
This discussion can devolve into a political argument, but it's difficult to separate the politics from this, so I suggest focusing on the principles involved. Use these and other news articles to educate yourself about this and then offer your perspectives. You have wide latitude to explore this, but please take care to contribute to a civil discussion.
131 comments:
Alexandra Pineda T/Th 11 a.m.
I believe that the White House revoking media correspondent Jim Acosta's press credentials is a violation of the first amendment, specifically Acosta's freedom of speech. The idea that the President has discretion over who he allows to report on him is, pardon my language, but BULLSHIT! Especially considering that Trump has criticized the media all throughout his presidency. I think this notion of discretion opens up grounds for government censorship and sets the precedent for presidents (public officials) to be able to revoke press passes (punish) of media correspondents for coverage they do not like.
I believe that taking away Acosta's hard pass was a violation to the 1st Amendment and Acosta's right to free speech. Since this blog post was put up the court ruled that Acosta will get his press pass back, but when it happened I remember being appalled. Even when the news first broke out my mind went to all of the violations of Acosta's rights and knew CNN would sue. It was only a matter of time, and considering cases like the Hepps case, the court knew they couldn't support Trump's decision to revoke the pass due to the chilling effect. In my opinion it was a stupid decision to make in the first place. The press keeps the 3 branches in check and it will continue to do so even if people don't like it.
Mykl M.
T/Th 2 p.m. (I'm resubmitting this because I forgot my class period)
I believe that taking away Acosta's hard pass was a violation to the 1st Amendment and Acosta's right to free speech. Since this blog post was put up the court ruled that Acosta will get his press pass back, but when it happened I remember being appalled. Even when the news first broke out my mind went to all of the violations of Acosta's rights and knew CNN would sue. It was only a matter of time, and considering cases like the Hepps case, the court knew they couldn't support Trump's decision to revoke the pass due to the chilling effect. In my opinion it was a stupid decision to make in the first place. The press keeps the 3 branches in check and it will continue to do so even if people don't like it.
Maci N,
Online
I believe that revoking Jim Acosta's press credentials is definitely a violation of the First Amendment. President Trump has criticized the media throughout his entire Presidency- particularly CNN. Acosta was just doing his job and while he may have stepped out of line by not sitting down when asked to, I don't believe that's grounds for taking away Acosta's press pass. I think this is an extremely unjust violation of Acosta's freedom of speech and I'm not entirely sure that Acosta should have ever had his press pass taken away. I personally feel as if Acosta was punished simply because Trump didn't like him as a reporter, even though one of the articles says otherwise.
Makalah F.
Online
The president revoking a press pass because he doesn't approve of a reporters questions or the news outlet the questions are coming from is a violation of the First Amendment. The White House should not have the power and authority to grant or reject a press pass. It's a violation. We, the people have pressing questions that a sitting president should be able to answer instead the president name calls, curses and lies. We have had presidents in the past that may have favored or disliked a new source, but to call news outlets "fake news" puts a target on the press and revoking a pass because of something that clearly, in the video footage, shows did not happen is wrong.
Sam D.
T/Th 2
Trump revoking Acosta's press pass is a violation of the First Amendment. Even though Jim kept speaking after Trump asked him to stop, impoliteness is one of those "inconvenient" rights that the government is required to protect, especially when it comes to the press. Trump should not be allowed to publicly announce that "CNN reports fake news often" and attack Acosta's character if Acosta can't even ask him a few tough questions concerning matters important to public interest. Trump's spokesperson saying that he should be able to lawfully revoke a journalist's press pass if he doesn't agree with his/her reporting is extremely concerning, and I agree with the WHCA lawyers that if this were allowed, the chilling effect would be so severe that WHC's would simply not be able to do their jobs. Trump needs to accept that many Americans do not agree with his policies, words, actions - and journalists need to report to these people too - not just his supporters. Being a President means that answering tough questions respectfully is essential and necessary.
Jared Balderrama T/TH 2
The fact that the White House revoked Jim Acosta right to go into the White House and report for the organization that he's currently working for is a violation of the First Amendment with the freedom of press and speech. He can't pick and choose who reports and who does because if he was able to do that then he could basically choose the reporters that would put President Trump in good light. Another thing is that yes, they were both acting out in a certain way that they shouldn't but trump being trump he took it to another level by saying that CNN produces fake news. If Trump has nothing nice to say then he needs to keep it to himself.
Garrett Green, Tue-Thur 2p.m.
There is a right and a wrong for this topic. I believe that the White House is wrong for revoking Mr. Acosta's "Hard Pass," the White House should not hold the power to kick-out news reporters for asking questions. Mr. Acosta was a little combative with trying to get his questions answered. But, with that said, it was just questions. Therefore, the Trump administration should not hold the right to filter reporters in-and-out of the White House. Revoking press-passes for the White House is on the line of being unconstitutional because it suppresses the First Amendment rights.
Blade Brister, TTh 2-3:20pm
I believe that Acosta was being attacked based on the fact that he worked for CNN. Considering that CNN is know for being for critical on their criticism on our current president. The Fist Amendment is being under attack because the White House press room was made just for this reason. First Amendment protects freedom of the press even if the press does not agree with our president.
Donte Jones TTH
If Trump was not the current president i don't think this situation would be an article. That's clearly a bold statement, but Jim Acosta clearly went to a press conference and acted out of what the president deemed reasonable. Now Acosta's right to press(blogs,social media,etc.) isn't being taken away, but his position as chief White House correspondent is being questioned as liable. His press pass on these outlets are being revoke as they should if on paper, the president believed Acosta's actions throughout the conference was of a degenerate.
https://www.bhsumedia.com/6393/news/first-amendment/#photo
O'Bryant Muralles
Online Class
Full Disclosure: I was a fan Donald Trump's The Apprentice show on NBC. I thought it was cool but there was one kid in my class from New York and he did not speak of Donald Trump. Through him I learned that Donald Trump went through a bankruptcy and was able to stay afloat by licensing his name to the buildings he already sold. Later on I saw an ESPN 30 for 30: Small Potatoes: Who Killed the USFL? Lo and behold Donald Trump popped again. Here he bought an USFL team and then tried to get the league to move to the fall to compete with the NFL. How does this sound like a good idea on paper?
There's a lot more to that story but there's not enough time to explain it all. From my understanding, he was born into wealth and doesn't know a life outside of that. He has not seen a lot, if any repercussions because everybody has a price and he has been able to bail himself out essentially.
Now in his defense, like anyone else in his position who has always been a boss, he surrounded by a lot of yes men. Same with a celebrity that has an entourage, anyone hanging on to someone's coattails doesn't want to do anything that is going to impair the gravy train.
In conclusion, is there an attack on the media and first amendment yes. Donald Trump to the best of my understanding, has been able to buy the press. He bought the good stories and buried the bad. Now as a public official that is not an option. He is seeing himself in the mirror for the first time. He has always been able to "fire" people he doesn't like and now that is not an option. This is America.
Selina Quick
Online
The stories about Acosta's press pass being revoked reminds me of the restrictions monarchies used to place on publishers in the 1600's. Our 1st Amendment was established to protect people like Acosta from being silenced on the basis of personal conflict with a government official (in this case, Trump). I found it interesting that Brian Stelter reported on CNN that the White House and Secret Service guidelines state that reporters can't really have their press passes revoked or be banned from press hearings unless there is evidence that they are a danger to the president's safety. NPR reporters also made a statement that the press can't be limited in this way because that single reporter disfavored by Trump could potentially be the one to bring vital information to light. I appreciated seeing that five different news outlets (rivalries, no less) came together to file "friend-of-the-court" briefs in support of Acosta because they recognize - and maybe fear - that their constitutional right to question government officials could be at risk. It appears that this issue is being handled with recognition that complacency cannot be tolerated when it comes to our constitutional rights as Americans.
The revoking of Acosta's press pass was wrong. It seemed that Trump and his administration wanted to make an example of the CNN reporter. I do not agree with their attempt revoke his pass. Though, Acosta was pressing hard for an answer that still doesn't not warrant his pass removal or the intern attempting to take the microphone from him. Also the edited video to make it seem like he assaulted the intern was ridiculous and childish to be honest.
Steven Richardson 11 A.M. TTH
Adrianna Alejandro; TTH 11 a.m. class
President Trump has had a reputation of bad mouthing the press look and making them look like the bad guys. Even the things that he was saying in the news articles made him sound like he was being bratty. And possibly resulted in the administration dismissing Acosta from the press conference and revoking his press pass because Trump didn't like the way he was being addressed by Acosta. Acosta wasn't "respecting him." The Trump administration didn't have a legitimate reason to revoke Acosta's press pass, which in my opinion, is wrong and definitely attacks First Amendment rights. It's as if they're trying to silence a voice because they're afraid of Acosta revealing their true colors to the public eye.
Tramesha Hardy, 2pm class
I believe the white house is wrong for revoking Mr. Acosta’s right into the White House and trying to reject his press pass. Rejecting his press pass is a violation of the first amendment and his right to free speech and press. Mr. Acosta is just doing his job, yeah, he was aggressive, but he was just asking questions. His job is to ask questions, plus president trump is aggressive and rude all the time to the press. Trump administration should not try to set examples of people to silence them when a reporter is just doing his job
Hunter Kreinhop
11:00 AM Tues/Thurs Class
From a constitutional standpoint, there will always be a right answer, depending on the precedent of the last ruling of the USSC, haha.
On the revoking of the press pass during questioning, that is definitely not okay. The media's job is to keep people informed and the government's motives in check. The repression of this ability is paramount to limiting the power of the judicial or legislative.
Some would argue that Acosta's aggressive questioning is the reason why his mic was taken and press pass revoked. However, the manner of his questioning is not relevant to the White House's ability to reject his ability to ask.
Clearly, context is important. And the context, at least as to how I understand it, is that Trump's administration has demonstrated a trend of attempting to discredit or silence criticism. This is consistent with this decision. I hope that this is a warning shot that that's not okay for anyone, but especially a presidential administration, to try to silence relevant questions.
Bayley B, 11 a.m. class
I definitely believe the White House violated the first amendment by trying to revoke Acosta's press pass. Trump's actions in doing so are very parallel to an authoritative government and how the dictators react to criticism and the press. Not only is it a free press violation, but the fact the White House retweeted a doctored video of what happened is scary. It was clear they manipulated the video and made it seem like Acosta was in the wrong to justify taking his press pass away. First Amendment rights, especially the press, have been under attack since the beginning of the Trump administration. Even as a public figure, he does not like criticism and tries to curb it any way possible. The White House and president do not have the authority to grant/reject press passes. The U.S. is not totalitarian and cannot continue acting as such.
Dylan Blackmon
T/Th 2:00 p.m.
With the news of this event it is concerning to think about how vulnerable your First Amendment rights can become if you're critical of a government office. I certainly think Acosta was singled out not just because of his actions but more to the cause of his affiliation with CNN, an organization that our current president has been vocally dismissive of. I do hope the proper actions are taken to prevent something like this from happening again.
Addison McKissack
t/th 11
The way that the White House dealt with this issue was appalling and shows that First Amendment rights are in danger. Acosta and the rest of the journalists in the press room have the right to be there and to cover what is coming out of the White House because at the end of the day, it is one of the most newsworthy subjects in the nation, and just like how we as citizens have the right to know what is happening, then CNN and Acosta have the right to be in the room and to report it. When the White House begins to decide who can and cannot be in the press room, that is the beginning of worse things to come, and when a government starts to limit the press outlets that they don't like or agree with, then the press won't be able to correctly do its job as the fourth estate.
Breanna W.
T/Th 11am
I believe that the president revoking the press pass of someone he simply doesn't care for has the potential to devolve into a First Amendment issue if it isn't already considered one. It is really just immature and reflects poorly on the president to be unable to properly handle hearing something he doesn't like. This has the potential to cause the chilling effect, causing White House reporters to not report in a manner that would accurately reflect true events. It's a fear tactic that didn't end up working in his favor but shows how his actions have no legitimate reasoning and can impact how the press functions as a whole.
I believe revoking the press credential of a journalist simply because you do not like the press or not like what he is asking is a first amendment issue and that he should not be able to do that. I see it as a branch of censorship almost. Trump has made it clear that he does not like CNN or the press in general because most of them "do not do a good job and aren't truthful" and that shouldn't mean that he has the authority to revoke the press credentials of journalist he doesn't see as truthful. It could also cause journalist to be scared to report on white house events in fear that they might ask the wrong thing.
Alexandra Briggs - TTH 11am
The president revoking Jim Acosta's press credentials is a clear violation of Acosta's First Amendment rights. If the president were to have complete discretion in who can and who cannot have a press pass, the level at which the chilling effect would take place would be incredibly dangerous. If he threw anyone who questioned him on things he did not want to be questioned about out of the room, there would be no check on the administration. It was a clear attack on CNN from an administration who has constantly criticized the media for "unfair reporting" on the campaign trail and throughout his presidency. It is essential to allow the press to serve as a check on government, and I am glad to see that action was taken to restore Acosta's right to be in the room.
Sarah Haverland- TTH 11am
Revoking Acosta's press pass is an extreme violation of the First Amendment. We have the right to free speech and Acosta was doing his job. It blows my mind that the president can try and eliminate people because he doesn't like what they say. I believe that the White House shouldn't have the power to get rid of news reporters for doing their job. Acosta may be in the wrong in some peoples eyes, but he does not deserve to have some of his rights taken away.
Kelly M. - T/TH 2 pm class
I believe the White House revoking Jim Acosta's hard pass is a violation of the First Amendment. Acosta reports for a news outlet President Trump has disliked and disproved of since his election. During the conference where the dispute between Acosta and Trump took place, Trump was clearly frustrated that Acosta wasn't willing to back down. These two factors were all that was needed for Trump and his administration to revoke Acosta's hard pass, which isn't right. This is stripping Acosta of his First Amendment right to free speech. Trump is notorious for throwing fits and claiming anything that puts him in a bad light is "fake news" and what happened at the White House is absolutely true to character. You can't shut a person up just because you don't like what they're saying about you. Come with better arguments and information to back you up in case of situations like these, instead of taking away a person's rights. Hopefully this situation doesn't lead to the White House getting creative in making an extensive rule book for such conferences.
Ashley Y.
T/Th 2pm class
I definitely believe the revoking of Jim Acosta's White House press pass is a violation of his right to free speech as stated in the First Amendment. While I do think there are two sides to this story that could both be fleshed out a little more, I still don't think the White House or the President have the right to take away his pass. If Acosta is really doing his job correctly as a journalist for CNN, he should be asking questions and holding up a light to what the government is actually doing. The WH taking his access away is part of a larger "chilling effect" that, in the end, is only going to do more harm than good. The government can't control what is said about it and should be criticized; that's the whole beauty of journalism.
The fact that President Trump revoked Jim Acosta's hard pass is LAUGHABLE. Firstly, the Trump administration has already had ill-willed relations with the media and CNN. There has already been tension between the two and Trump seems to have a habit of overreacting to reporters questions (there was also a female reporter who he verbally attacked, I can't recall her name but the video was all over Twitter). Secondly, what was Jim Acosta doing wrong? Challenging questions, from a reporter's standpoint, are a GOOD thing. He is doing his job, and doing it well. Trump's behavior in reaction to Jim Acosta's inquisitions at the news conference is just outrageous and disappointing to me as a student in this country who is studying Mass Communication and working so closely with the press. I feel for Jim Acosta. There shouldn't be punishment for utilizing your First Amendment right. Just because he is a reporter and works for the press, doesn't mean he should be treated any differently than an everyday U.S. citizen who could ask the same exact questions but just not have access to distribute it to the public as easily.
I do not understand why President Trump revoked Jim Acosta's press pass just because he wouldn't sit down. Sounds like two people who just can't get along to me. Definitely not something I would expect from a president, and also from a reporter either. But, politics on one end or the other can get extremely heated. I do believe that there is a First Amendment argument here and that by taking away his pass it is imposing on his freedom of Press right. I don't think that him not sitting down when asked merits the president taking away his pass. This is super extreme and shows just how much the president dislikes news organizations who he does not agree with. If they let the president get away with this, it will not be good because that means there will be conduct violations, and they can easily say anything is a violation and start taking away passes of news organizations whose viewpoints don't match up to theirs. It's dangerous and scary.
There most certainly is a violation of First Amendment rights occurring in the revoking of Jim Acosta's press pass. And I think any reasonable, competent, and honest citizen can see a clear right and wrong in this situation.
The clear wrong is a president who has a record of dishonesty and minimal transparency choosing to revoke a reporter's press credentials because he did not like the content of his question or the manner in which he demanded an answer. This is a clear example of the president using his platform to be the thought police and scare off the people who will ultimately hold him accountable.
I am glad the courts set a precedent that the president does not have the power to revoke a press pass on this basis. It would be a gross expansion of executive powers if the president gets to decide who is allowed to question them. If you allow the president to have substantial choice over who is allowed in the press conference, you create a space for them to create a privately funded, state propaganda machine.
I think it's also something as simple as President Trump has constantly been allowed to for lack of better words "go off." Though the media points out his antics continuously, he still has those first amendment rights that we are all entitled to; so when a journalist is simply performing his job and our President doesn't like it, he simply gets his rights stripped away? The only thing that this can be called is a tantrum which we have seen over the last few years with Trump in office. Acosta deserves his press pass just as much as someone who only points out the positives (which is shocking if it happens) of President Trump; there's no need to agree on political views, but journalists have a right to release information to America along with an opinion because that's just a basic human right.
Raylene Noriega T/TH @ 11
This also reminds me of the dispute between Kanye West and a reporter at NYFW when the reporter asked a rude question about his wife "Kim" and Tyson Beckford. Kanye later got the reporter kicked out of the venue because of the "rude" question. This is also in violations on the 1st amendment. Both of these public figures (Donald Trump & Kanye West) approached the whole situation incorrectly. They could of just ignored the question or redirected it. Yes I understand that there is a whole process to obtain these media passes but I feel like they have just approached it wrong and that the reporter should get their pass back along with opportunities to ask these questions for their media outlet.
Blair B. T/TH 11 a.m.
The president revoking Jim Acosta's press pass is a direct violation of his free speech rights under the First Amendment. Even if the president doesn't like what was said, that doesn't mean he gets the right to automatically discard people. It also doesn't mean you get to claim they are untruthful. The White house is increasingly restrictive and selective toward the media and its entirety, and it's beginning to spiral so far downward that's it's laughable. Additionally, the lack of respect that circulates throughout the administration is saddening.
At this rate, we aren't going to be able to report or say anything even remotely disagreeable. Doesn't this sound like we are going back in time?
Jason Harlan T/TH 2 PM
This is definitely a violation of Acosta's first amendment right. He was doing his job, albeit not as well as he should've been. It's not illegal to have bad manners, and as such it's hard to understand how President Trump can throw Acosta out when he technically didn't do anything legally out of line. It does appear to be a slippery slope if we let any President handpick who runs the media coming out of the white house. At that point, you don't have media that the people can believe in.
Kayla Hammer T/TH 2pm
I believe that the revoking of Acosta's pass is an extreme violation of the first amendment. Although Acosta may have over stepped his boundaries by not complying when told to sit, he was asking fair questions. This was another case of Trump lashing out on opposing views/ hard hitting questions he continuously avoids. Acosta's biased views may have been what prompted the questions but they are also questions the rest of the country needs answers too. Our president has always avoided the "sticky" questions, and I feel as though Acosta was fighting for all of us by trying to finally get an answer. This was a complete violation of his rights as an individual, as well as his rights as the press. He was doing his job by seeking the answers to report back to the people.
Dilynn-Paige Ewing 11 am TTH
I think taking Jim Acostas hard pass was a violation of his freedom of speech/ 1st amendment. Acosta was simply doing his job and taking his pass was unnessasary. He might’ve crossed the line a little but not that much. Trump was out of line, in my opinion, for doing what he did simply because he did approve his questions. Thats crazy.
Madelyne Martinez T/Th 2 pm
While there are many things wrong with what happened, i do believe Acostas first amendment was violated . I do believe Acosta was just doing his job and didn’t come off as aggressive or shove her, but he was told that his "turn" was over. No I do not believe the president handled this right and there was better ways to handle it. I do believe that the whole situation could have been avoided if both parties showed the same amount of respect toward one another.
Elizabeth Oxford
T/TH at 2pm
I definitely think that this was a violation to the first amendment. Acosta should have acted a bit better but in the end he is trying to do his job. I also think when court established the ruled that "...the president can't revoke his credentials without due process..." that this is important. This is especially evident currently because of Trump's "beef" with the media. He can't just revoke someone's credentials if he doesn't like what they have to say.
I believe that what happened as far as Jim Acostas hard pass being taken away was a huge violation of his First Amendment right/ Freedom of Speech. Yes, President Trump did ask the repoter to take a set and Acosta did not, however, he should not be punished with his hard pass being taken away. President Trump has made it clear on many occasions that he is not in favor of CNN journalist, questions that he can't answer or those who speak against his presidency. The fact that this has been excel in this agree goes to show what power the President thinks his has over the Consitution. This could very well be the beginning of a even more radical political war if things like this continues.
I don't believe there was any violation of the first amendment. Yes, the act wasn't the most trusting decision made or possibly the right one, but the amendment is far from visiting the White House. I personally think taking Acosta's rights away could possibly lead to a chilling affect with other journalist and could definitely lead to self-censorship in a way. When this happens, then yes, it will violate the first amendment. Reason I don't believe that it was violated is because he is not censoring him to saying annoying. Yes, the house is considered a public place, but when you look at it in a legal way, Trump didn't censor him from saying anything. All that was done was stripping his access to the White House. Once again, I do believe that it would lead to a violation due to the affect on other journalists. Looking at the whole picture you may automatically assume that it was most definitely violated, but you have to sit and think that no words were taken away from Acosta, therefore, the first amendment right was not violated in my opinion.
In this situation, there is right or wrong and Trump was completely wrong. I think what the White House did to Jim Acosta was a violation of his freedom of speech and freedom of press. I think that Trump is trying to silence reporters and it just isn't right. The White House should not be able to do things as such, especially in the situation that happened with Acosta. Trump shouldn't be able to do things like that, things that will have a chilling affect on reporters who may not speak up/out against trump because of how he might try to punish them.
Regine M. 11am
Taylor J.
T-TH 11
This whole situation is one big violation of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Trump attempting to silence the press has been going on since the beginning of his presidency. Acosta has the right to report and say whatever he wants ( as the press should) and this is just the latest case of Trump trying to fight back. If the White House continues to do things like this in the future, I believe it could lead to some sort of censorship which is everything america is against.
While I acknowledge that there is no right to a white house press pass, there is also no right to kick out a reporter for asking tough questions. The Trump administration's reasoning for stripping Jim Acosta's press pass has no basis in reality because the only person "misbehaving" and being rude in that room was Trump himself. The false accusation that Mr. Acosta laid hands on a white house aid just adds insult to injury.
I believe that Mr. Acosta's First Amendment rights were violated. While he doesn't have a right to be invited to the white house, the administration also doesn't have the right to kick reporters out for no reason other than to cause a chilling effect among other news outlets.
Aunnelise Salinas
T/Th 2 pm
I do believe Jim Acosta's first amendment rights were violated when his press pass was revoked. It's not mandatory for Acosta to be allowed in the White House but his rights should still be upheld while he is there. HIs job is to report on the government and just because he would not sit down when told to, doesn't mean he should have had his pass stripped form him. I'm sure there have been other reporters that have done the same if not worse and Trump has a history of attacking CNN so this isn't a total surprise. I also believe he should not be able to pick and choose which journalists come to a news conference just because he doesn't like or agree with their reporting.
Benn Ginigeme
T/Th 2pm
I think Jim Acosta's first amendment rights were violated when taking away his pass. I don't think you can just kick out a reporter for asking an uncomfortable question. Like Shane Willenborg said, The Trump administration's reasoning for stripping Jim Acosta's press pass has no basis in reality because Trump was the only person that was misbehaving. I think Trump doing actions like that is disrespectful to Acosta and also the first amendment.
Ali Mumbach
TTh 2 pm
There most certainly was a wrong here. Acosta's First Amendment rights were prohibited. I think that the claim that his pass was revoked because of his "rude behavior" is just a cover for the fact that Trump doesn't like him and disagrees with his reporting. I can't even guess how many reporters have demonstrated the same behavior that Acosta did, but whose passes weren't taken away. And in the NPR worksheet, when I read Judge Kelly's question about if the president doesn't like the reporting, is he allowed to pull the pass, and Burnham said yes, my mouth dropped! The CNN article, is more detailed and says Burnham replied to this question, "As a matter of law...yes." And after taking this class, I now know that actually that is content-based which is always unconstitutional. So I'm just wondering if Burnham forgot about this, never learned it, or is simply confused. I felt pretty intelligent knowing that information, and the Justice Department's lawyer does not. I'm glad Judge Kelly ended up ruling in favor of CNN and Acosta. I think it was the right decision, based on what I've learned in this class. I don't think that the White House has the power or authority to grant or reject press passes as the president sees fit.
It seems that if the president was able to revoke one press pass, nothing would stop him from revoking any press pass whenever he wants. It seems that Trump revoked the pass because he didn't like Acosta's questions, although he argued it was because of Acosta's behavior. It was never made very clear why exactly he revoked the pass and this also weakens Trump's argument. As one of the articles mentioned, I do agree that if Acosta would have lost (which he didn't) that there would be a severe chilling effect over the media for fear of being too "rude" and risk losing their press pass and therefore potentially their career. Freedom of the press is an important aspect of the First Amendment and it seems that revoking press passes would encroach on that right.
Tynisha Jackson
T/Th 11 am
I agree with CNN that restricting Acosta's press pass violates his First Amendment rights. Just because Trump finds his questions offensive or he simply does not want to answer it, does not give him the right to revoke Acosta's press pass completely. I understand Acosta was told several times to sit down and he chose not to but that is when you kick him out of the press conference for that day for disturbing other questions from media outlets being asked. However, taking revoking his press pass can lead to media being fearful of asking certain questions that informs the public on issues they need to know about.
I think its very smart and brave of CNN, Fox news and other media outlets to ban together on this issue.
From: Emily Keefer
2 pm class
I believe there is a wrong here. The President should not be able to tell a reporter of the press that they can't come to the White House anymore. I understand that he may have asked questions that the President did not want to answer, but it still didn't give him the right to do that to him. I believe his First Amendment rights were attacked, but I'm glad that they righted the wrong and let him come back to the White House and have privileges once again. I also do not believe that the White House has the power to make a reporter stop coming to the White House. That would be an abuse of power and a power that they shouldn't even have.
I 100% believe that this is a violation of the first Amendment. Just because President Trump doesn't like the question Acosta asked does NOT give him the right or the authority to kick him out of the press conference and temporarily take away his pass. As president, he will constantly face criticism and questions that might offend him but that is part of the job as president.
I also thought that is was amazing that two completely different news organizations came together to defend Acosta and the first Amendment. This is how it should always be for media outlets instead of constantly attacking each other.
I was not surprised Acosta's press pass was restored, but I was surprised that it was revoked in the first place. After watching the video of the incident, Acosta was not in the wrong. He simply asked the President tough questions, and the President did not want to answer then attacked Acosta's legitimacy. Unfortunately, the Trump administration has a history of these incidents where they try to stifle free speech, which is dangerous. If we are a free country, the President should act in a way that stands behind free speech rather than intimidate it, even if that speech is critical of the President. Also, the White House shouldn't have the authority revoke passes based on the difficulty of questions being asked, especially when those questions arise from the President's actions. Rather, the President should be held accountable for his actions.
-Cecil Carter – 2:00 class
I don’t condone Acosta’s behavior when he was overreacting to the situation that started the whole mess, but I also thing he should be granted his media pass back to him because not only do I think it infringed on his first amendment rights, but also I believe if this continues to go on and they keep it revoked it’ll snow ball into overreacting over many thing and trump will aggressively take advantage of that
Ryan Horky 2pm
Natalie Krupp
T/TH 2pm
I think Jim Acosta's First Amendment rights were violated when his press pass was revoked. Regardless of Acosta's behavior, revoking his press pass was not the appropriate response. It is part of the press' job to ask the uncomfortable questions. I think there needs to be a set rule for what actions are grounds for getting a press pass taken away, so that those with the power to revoke a press pass don't abuse it and silence the press.
Dominique Hutchinson
Online
I believe that revoking Jim Acosta's press credentials was a violation of the First Amendment. Reporters have the right to ask questions in order to deliver a message to the general public. This goes far beyond one's image and focuses on the general public. Acosta was doing his job and asking questions and for the president to revoke his press credentials is a violation of freedom of speech. His credentials should not have been revoked in the first place. Independence, honesty, truth and accountability are key factors for every reporter to follow, thus Jim Acosta was simply doing his job in which was delivering the truth by asking questions to report to the public.
Camelia Juarez
Jim Acosta's first amendment rights were violated because his behavior was not violent towards the president or threatened the president's safety. Press credentials are a privileged, assuming the journalist opposes no physical threat to safety or anything unethical. Acosta's press pass is important because he was asking hard questions to the president and he made an attempt to remove CNN, who reports opposing politics towards Trump, from the White house which is important. Someone needs to bring an opposing view and ask hard questions to the white house.
I believe that Acosta having his pass revoked is a violation of the first amendment. I do feel like Acosta may have acted out of line, but considering the fact that Trump labels the media as the enemy consistently, it was only a matter of time before the media really start fighting back. After watching the clip of this happening, I felt genuinely worried for the first time in a while for what is happening with this administration. Any sort of censorship should be taken as a red flag immediately.
Andrew C Esteves
T/Th 2pm
Censorship in a whole can be used for a personal benefit or a castrophical terror, we need to know what goes on in the world to help prepare ourselves for whats to come. Acosta's pass being revoked is indeed a violation to his rights, but the way he showed himself could easily be taken to someone that deserves it.
Jade Simon
4301 Online
I believe that the revoking of Jim Acosta's press pass to the White House was a clear and present danger to Acosta's free speech and First Amendment rights. In context with Trump's unwavering criticism and outright demonizing of the media, specifically CNN and any other media organization that reports on him in an unfavorable way, the actions of the WH seem to be an outright attack on the media's duty to hold our elected public officials accountable for their actions.
In any situation where the government uses their authority to silence, censor, or obstruct the voices of reporters, we should consider it an attack on the First Amendment and Constitutional rights afforded to all citizens -- including Jim Acosta.
Breanna McMurray 11 AM Class
I think the root to this whole issue was haste. The Trump administration immediately revoked Acosta's press pass when he insulted the President, and I think if they took more time to think about the situation and deliberate, they would have found that taking away his pass was a violation of the First Amendment. The things that Journalists say during press conferences should be protected by the First Amendment as long as it is said respectfully. I do not think a President should be able to take away someones rights just because they don't agree with him or his employer. I do agree with the Presidential Administration, that, although Journalists in a press conference should be protected, they should come up with some guidelines to how people may speak in the White House. I think this issue would have been easily avoided if there was mutual respect between the parties and the Administration wasn't so hasty to take away his press pass to do his job.
Maricela A. Zambrano
T/TH 11am
I believe that revoking Jim Acosta’s pass was a violation of the First Amendment. His behavior was nonviolent and nonthreatening towards the president. According to Dr. Youmans, a chilling effect would occur when having a rudeness or aggressive behavior policy. Even though Acosta might have been rude or the president didn’t like what he said still doesn’t give the White House the power to grant or reject press passes.
Jim Acosta's press pass should have not been revoked, his freedom of press right was imposed by this action. He had every right to be able to stand by his viewpoint and initiate dialogue with the president as a reporter during the press conference. Acosta was simply just doing his job as a reporter, although the topic did not seem appropriate to the president, the situation could have been handled differently. The president can not limit the power of reporting by denying future access to press conferences due to the chilling effect with other new sources. Im glad the white house realized what they did was wrong and restored Acostas press pass.
Raul Torres T/Th 2pm
Jim Acosta's press pass should have not been revoked, his freedom of press right was imposed by this action. He had every right to be able to stand by his viewpoint and initiate dialogue with the president as a reporter during the press conference. Acosta was simply just doing his job as a reporter, although the topic did not seem appropriate to the president, the situation could have been handled differently. The president can not limit the power of reporting by denying future access to press conferences due to the chilling effect with other new sources. Im glad the white house realized what they did was wrong and restored Acostas press pass.
Johnathan G 11 a.m.
I think there was right and wrong on both sides of this issue. On the one hand, many accounts say that Jim Acosta's line of questioning could be described as hostile, which lends to the air of unprofessionalism that permeates this whole case. On the other hand, and far more dangerously, the White House was able to violate their own revocation process. This means that if only temporarily, reporters could be silenced for the ease of those in power. The thought is chilling, to say the least. Especially as it feels like a potential gateway to First-Amendment violations. I only say "potential gateway", because in this case it was ruled that Acosta's badge be restored. Had this not occurred though, this would have been a blatant disregard for the press protections provided by the First Amendment. Those protections are in place so that reporters can ask difficult questions in order to hold politicians accountable to the people. I understand the White House's need to quell hostile reporters that will not add to the discussion, but the violation of the process to revoke Acosta's press pass makes it feel like this is for another reason entirely. And that reason brings with it a dangerous silence.
I think this situation violates the First Amendment. There have been, and I think always will be, situations sometimes where one reporter gets on the president's (any president's) nerves during a conference and that removal of someone from the microphone can be requested, but not demanded. I think that there is no place for the president to revoke someone's press pass for doing nothing illegal or inappropriate, especially for something that's merely a nuisance to them. The US president does not dictate anyone, especially the press, I'd argue.
Brady O'Borski
11am TTH
Taking Jim Acosta's press pass away is considered a violation of the 1st Amendment and it seemed petty in a way that the white house would immediate revoke his ability to speak to the president. Although some people argue that the questions itself felt very attacking on the president I see it another way. A reporters job is to challenge what is currently happening by asking tough questions. Just because the president didn't agree with the line of questioning doesn't give him the right to silence him.
Raven Correa
T/TH 2 pm
I think it is wrong of the white house to do this to Jim Acosta. This is a violation of the first amendment and Acosta's right of freedom of speech. First amendment rights are under attack here because Trump is trying to stop the media from doing their job. Just because Trump and CNN have been at odds does not mean he has the right to do this. If he did this to all the media that was against him, then the only media out there would be for him, and that is bias. We need people reporting from both sides. The first amendment is supposed to protect to press, and so Acosta has the right to do his job. He was asking questions, and that is his job. The white house should not have the power to grant or reject press passes.
Kayla D.
2:00pm class
Looking at it from a constitutional standpoint, I think the White House absolutely violated the first amendment by revoking Acosta's press pass. Part of safe, inclusive democracy is a free press that has the ability to report on issues. President Trump should not be able to decide which reporters he does and doesn't want in the White House just because their coverage of him may be less than positive. That gets into dangerous territory regarding democracy and censorship. Despite President Trump's insistence that Acosta was rude, after watching the (undoctored) video myself it's pretty clear that all Acosta did was reasonable criticism and asking second questions, and in my opinion he wouldn't be a good reporter if he didn't do that.
Silencing reporters is a scary slope, and I'm glad that the final ruling on this was that Acosta got his press pass back. President Trump seems to have an unfortunate and dangerous disregard for the law and the Constitution.
Anthony Johnson- TTH 11 a.m.
I actually watched this exchange on TV when it happened and I can still vividly recall all the details. Jim Acosta was simply trying to press President Trump on a question that he simply did not want to answer. He kept dancing around the question and refusing to give a definitive answer. Acosta, as well as many other press reporters, have become noticeably frustrated over the lack of communication from the White House. Everything just seems so secretive, like there's a lot of info being buried under the carpet.
I do agree that revoking Acosta's press pass was a First Amendment violation since he, as a member of the press, has a right to free speech. Also, he has a right to use his platform to express and acquire information from our President regarding public matters that affect all of us. Our president is such a hypocrite in the way that he bashes our media outlets relentlessly and quickly tries to shut down any attempt from them to bash him. The White House should have not have any power in suppressing the voices of the press.
I believe that this is a violation of First Amendment rights of the reporter. Just because someone says something you don't like, does not give you the access to take away their right to free speech. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. The point of the press is to get more information about things that are happening in the world and really get in deep about the truth behind things. Just because you don't want to answer questions or get offended easily by intense questions, doesn't mean you can take away someones right to ask them.
Cody Houdmann TTH 11 a.m.
I believe them taking away his pass was absolutely ridiculous. Just because you do not like a question that a reporter asks does not mean you can take his free speech away. Although it was a disruption you can see the way that some people may have been discouraged and sat down but he was not afraid and kept pressing. I believe acts like this stand out in history and I am glad he got his pass back.
Brianna Fisher T/TH 11am
I feel like the removal of Acosta's press pass violated his First Amendment rights completely, if everyone got their pass's taken away every time the press said something they didn't like it just wouldn't work. The possibility of them taking there credentials could also limit the things the press will say in the future. It seems like the White House was just trying to silence him which is entirely against his First Amendment rights.
Brian Hall TTH 2 p.m
After reflecting upon the events that happened with Jim Acosta and the President of the United States; I am truly perplexed by what is to come of a free press in the digital age. I watched countless Youtube videos of the incident from all different angels. Furthermore, I read left leaning media outlets opinion pieces and right-wing outlets trying to find common concerns. Its clear a violation of Acosta's right to a fair and transparent process was ruled by a judge and both sides agree upon that, and I do too. However, the presidents rebuttal was interesting demanding that,“people have to behave,” that there must be decorum at the Whitehouse. Ironically at the same time the Presidents and all emerging politicians preferred tool of communication is Twitter, which has little room for manners, with often false claims and insults being throw at one another. Additionally, from a legal stand point the Trump administrations plan to come up with conduct-based criteria credentials for the press could be very damaging in the long run for our First amendment rights.
Cheyenne Young 11 a.m. class
This is, without a doubt, a violation of the first amendment. Trump went into this with a negative bias against CNN and treated the reporter poorly for simply doing his job. The revoking of Acosta's press pass not only stripped him of his first amendment rights, but was entirely immature. This has already sparked a lot of conversation about the freedom of speech in media and I hope it continues to do so.
Sam Vongphachanh TTh 2pm
I think it would have been fair for President Trump to kick out Acosta for his actions, but the president needs to realize that his actions have a lot to do with how Acosta acted and revoking his pass was uncalled for. He is constantly interrupting reports, calling them names, saying their questions are stupid, and these journalists are sick of their work being constantly degraded. I do think that first amendment rights are attacked here because Trump acted out simply because he doesn't like Acosta. I believe all news outlets should have the right to be at a White House conference regardless of what the administration thinks of them.
I believe that this situation is a violation of the First Amendment. This is a direct threat to freedom of expression and the freedom to criticize those in the public eye. Public figures should expect criticism from the people because that is what this country was founded on.
Autumn Wright T/Th 11 a.m.
The main wrong I've seen from this incident is the lack of due process for revoking Mr. Acosta's credentials. The president needs to summarize what was done wrong, give Acosta, or CNN, a chance to respond and wait for a final decision by a federal judge to be made. However, none of that happen. Acosta was refused entry into the White House. The White House doesn't have the authority to cast out journalists for asking critical questions towards the administration or the president. Acosta asked why the president called the migrants coming from central america an "invasion," and why he used imagery of the migrants jumping over border fences in an advertisement that would give a negative image to immigrants coming from central america. I can see why Trump would be upset at Acosta's mannerisms because he did answer his initial question, granted it may have not be a sufficient answer, but it was an answer. I don't think it's a First Amendment issue because Trump felt Acosta was acting unprofessionally, even though I disagree, Trump did not want to answer his follow-up question and he has a right to not answer. I think taking away his credentials without a fair process was wrong and unjust, it's a misuse of power. I DO HOWEVER, think that if Acosta's credentials stayed revoked it would have caused First Amendment issues because that would make it seem like it was okay to outcast journalists or news organizations because they don't like the critical questions. But since they gave Acosta access again, I don't think it can be a First Amendment issue in court.
I do see this incident possibly bringing a chilling effect in the future, but I believe if journalists and news organizations continue to not be intimidated and ask the hard questions that the people have a right to know, then the government has no right to infringe on their line of questioning.
Katrina Dinh 2 pm class
President Trump revoking Jim Acosta's press credentials is a violation of his first amendment rights. This allows for the president to revoke press credentials for whoever does not put him in good light and favor and keep those who do. Freedom of speech in media is a big deal and very important to people and this controversial event has caused a lot of people to speak up for Jim Acosta and the future press. We need to make sure no one, including the president, can take away first amendment rights of anyone.
Trump is in the news EVERYDAY. This conman duped the US people into electing him with his honeyed words of a better America. I hate to give credit to this doof but he has the media wrapped around his finger, and the media is blind to it. Any publicity is good for Donald and he knows it. The more outrageous the better. Props to Acosta for standing up and refusing to do as he was told AND it is good to see media outlets like CNN and Fox, longtime rivals, band together in defense of free speech, but unfortunately it only widens division in America. The millions of Americans that want to live in 'Trumps America' despise the media already. Propaganda blinds them, fuels them and encourages their hatred of journalists and the Fourth Estate a like. Thanks to previous presidents and their overuse of executive orders Trump grows more emboldened by the day. Even scarier -- hee has the approval of those we would call our fellow Americans. I fear that our course as a nation is steering in the opposite direction of freedom. God forbid Trump gets another term.
Sydney Smith 2p.m.
Like many have already said, I do believe the White House removing Acosta's press pass violated the First Amendment. However it is still unclear to me at this time if this case will actively change the legality in which correspondents interview the president and White House staff for the better. And in terms of over all right and wrong, it would be nice if both sides took the effort to have an actual discussion instead of entertaining americans and other nations. It's upsetting to watch Trump to continue to call CNN "fake news" and it is upsetting to watch reporters ask Trump the same questions about immigration or Russia expecting some new response. Now I can see how a reporter should lose their press pass if they use fighting words, or brought actual harm to the president or any of the White House staff.
I think it should be unconstitutional for the president to be able to revoke a reporter's press credentials. If they aren't reporting false news then they should be able to ask what questions they'd like. If the president doesn't want to them to ask certain questions he can ask them to leave.
Elizabeth M-H
2pm class
I definitely think by restricting Acosta's press pass that it violates our first amendment rights to press and freedom of speech. I understand that he was very adamant (some would say rude) as he interrupted the press conference, but in my opinion, as a good journalist it is their responsibility to fight for the truth. It'll be interesting to see how this develops further as Trump continues to claim that any news he doesn't like is "fake news" and whether he'll try to get legislation passed to limit press rights on White House grounds. Ultimately, if he were allowed to limit voices of those that challenged his ideas/actions, then that would rewrite what our founding fathers wrote into the first amendment.
Carlos Mercado TTh 11am
I think President Trump revoking Jim Acosta's press pass is definitely a violation of Acosta's first amendment rights. I feel like the only reason all this is happening is only because Trump is bothered for what Acosta did. Freedom of Speech for the media is a huge factor nowadays I feel like the whole lawsuit is pointless, and I don't understand why it still hasn't been resolved. The White House restricting press access to him is showing us that his individual freedom of press is being violated. I feel like there still be might more involved since Trump is always calling CNN "fake news".
Josue Reynoza
TTH 11am
I believe Jim Acosta shouldn't have had his press credentials revoked. As someone who is supposed to keep the government accountable for the people, I believe the White House was wrong in revoking the press pass. I do believe that rejecting the press pass is not under the authority of the president.
I believe Jim Acosta shouldn't have had his press redenitals taken away he was is the wrong.
Ashley L
2pm Class
I believe that Jim Acosta getting his press credentials revoked is a violation of the First Amendment. Acosta's questions did not cause imminent lawless action. He did not envoke violence or appear harmful in any way. The President simply did not like the questions being asked and censored Acosta, which is a clear violation of free speech.
Bella Lopes
T/R 2:00 p.m.
President Trump and The White House definitely acted unconstitutionally towards Jim Acosta. The revoking of Acosta's press credentials is a clear violation of the First Amendment. President Trump may chose to disagree with some journalists point of view, but he does not have the right to take any type of legal action. Freedom of the press was established so there could be watchdog or a "fourth branch of government" to keep an eye on political figures. Acosta being revoked his freedom, is definitely violating his rights.
Solietthe Reyes
TTH 11am
The White House revoking reporter, Jim Acosta, press credentials is violating the First Amendment and freedom of speech. It is not right to kick out reporters just for asking questions. Acosta did push it, but it’s still not fair, he was just doing his job. President Trump wasn’t having it, but if its not his way there is no way. Trump is known for trolling the press throughout his presidency. All the news he doesn't like is considered "fake news" to him but in reality he just likes to point the finger at everyone else but himself. The Trump administration should not hold the right of filtering reporters, everyone has a voice even though some people may not agree with it.
Jorge H
2pm class T/Th
Trumps hypocrisy aside, I do agree with what the White House Correspondents Association lawyers said, about Acosta's banning having a "chilling effect." As we learned in class, journalists should be able to gather and report the news, and if Trump can revoke their pass without question or consequence, whats to stop him from banning any journalists that rub him the wrong way. For this reason, I believe that the white house should not have to power to grant or reject press passes.
Katelyn Helms. T/TH 11 a.m.
It seems as if they are both in the wrong. Though, I do believe revoking Acosta's press pass was going against the first amendment. It seems as if the White House, Trump specifically was just trying to use a "scare tactic" into making reporters behave. I found it Ito be interesting when NPR said, "CNN's lawyer Theodore Boutrous Jr. replied that it was the president who was the "most aggressive" and "rudest" person in the room on Nov. 7. He added that if asking follow-up questions or challenging the president are grounds for having a press pass taken away, at least 10 other reporters would have lost their credentials, too."
Like I said, a sure tactic was in place. Trump is known for is slander and need for power. I'm not surprised he used Acosta as an example to try and gin resect and show he has the ultimate power. When in reality he shouldn't.
Katelyn Helms. T/TH 11 a.m.
It seems as if they are both in the wrong. Though, I do believe revoking Acosta's press pass was going against the first amendment. It seems as if the White House, Trump specifically, was just trying to use a "scare tactic" into making reporters behave. I found it It to be interesting when NPR said, "CNN's lawyer Theodore Boutrous Jr. replied that it was the president who was the "most aggressive" and "rudest" person in the room on Nov. 7. He added that if asking follow-up questions or challenging the president are grounds for having a press pass taken away, at least 10 other reporters would have lost their credentials, too."
Like I said, a scare tactic was in place. Trump is known for is slander and need for power. I'm not surprised he used Acosta as an example to try and gain resect and show he has the ultimate power. When in reality he shouldn't.
Destinee B,
T/Th 2.pm.
The fact that Acosta's press pass was even revoked in the first place blows my mind. I feel like the White House definitely violated the First Amendment. Just because Trump didn't like the questions Acosta asked doesn't mean he should be kicked out of the press room. Acosta was doing his job and I feel like reporters report to inform the people, not just please Mr. Donald. Trump is always trash talking the press and calling them names. He can't handle the pressure of the political press. The White House is wrong here and the First Amendment rights are under attack. They shouldn't have the power and authority to grant and reject press passes as the president sees fit.
Brandon Ferguson TR 11:00am
The White House's decision to take away Jim Acosta's press pass is 100% a violation of his First Amendment rights. Trump's thin skin and inability to answer questions he feels dont reflect his administration in a positive light is an example of government censorship. Government censorship is unconstitutional and Jim Acosta, and any reporter for that matter, should absolutely be able to ask the president any questions they see fit in order to produce a story. Its a reporters job to ask questions and be objective. If a president can't handle being asked difficult questions, he/she shouldn't be in office as the leader of our FREE nation.
Hunter Buttner
T/TH 11:00-12:30
The whole situation is just ridiculous. Revoking Acosta's press pass is a clear violation of the first amendment. The fact that they used the whole "He assaulted an intern" defense is proof that they knew they couldn't just ban him for asking tough questions. The court ruled that it was unconstitutional and reinstated the pass, this shouldn't be a debate anymore.
To me, the White House revoking Jim Acosta's press credentials goes against the first amendment, his freedom of speech. The fact that the President can decide who can and cannot report on him is irrational, because if that is the case why wouldn't the President only allow reporters who only write good things about him. To me it would have been an easy decision to sue, solely based on the violation of his first amendment. That shouldn't uphold in any court. The word that came to mind when I read this was hypocritical, because of how much the U.S. backs up freedom of speech.
I think that Trump's administration was wrong to take away Acosta's press pass. Trump wasn't happy with the questions Jim Acosta was asking and used his government power to revoke his rights. It is unconstitutional and was ruled that in court. Acosta's press pass was reinstated as expected.
Kayla Terrazas -- T/TH 2 pm
I think both parties were in the wrong. I think the White House did not make a good case in why they chose to revoke Acosta's press pass. The lack of due process and accusations of mistreating a intern was ridiculous, especially with their attempt at using a doctored video. Acosta was also in the wrong, yes he should be able to ask hard questions and get the answers but that doesn't go without saying he should know how to conduct himself. I believe that at that level of journalism, to be in the White House, it should be handled with respect and professionalism, despite who the president is. I am not fully sure that it was a violation of his first amendment but I am sure that the press pass revoke was not done in the proper way.
Taking away Acosta's press pass Went against the first amendment. Just because he was asking grilling questions did not give them the right to ban him. As professionals they could have handled the whole situation a lot better.
Hannah Shaw 2 p.m. class
The executive branch shouldn’t wield the power to expel nonthreatening reporters who are seeking answers from their government. The current administration is dangerously close to threatening the meaning and interpretation of the first amendment. A reporter’s ability to successfully update the public about their government’s dealings shouldn’t be obstructed because Acosta’s method of obtaining that important information was done in a “rude” way. Sometimes that attitude is necessary when a reporter is obtaining information that the public deserves to know. Yes, they give reporters the privilege of having press passes in the White House but if they can pick and choose which news outlets can’t attend then they are violating their first amendment right. In a way they are censoring Acosta’s right to freedom of press since they are denying him access to the source of information that directly affects the American public.
Ryan A
11am class.
While it is definitely unfair that they took Jim Acosta's press pass for simply doing his job. His job is to report and ask the questions that literally everyone is wondering. Watching the President react the way he did to simple questions was not even surprising in the least, but the actions that followed were.
It was not right for them to revoke his pass because the press has a certain duty to the rest of the citizens in America, and the constitution upholds that duty to report the truth. Not everyone is able to be up close and personal with figures like that so its crucial for those who are to get the truth out of the man running the country.
In conclusion, them taking away his privileges was basically translating to them wanting to silence the truth. After all, truth is the strongest defense.
Devin White, 2 PM Class
I believe that revoking Jim Acosta's press pass was an immediate violation of the first amendment when it comes to the rights of the press. The press is guaranteed the same freedom of speech as the rest of the United States citizens, and banning Acosta from doing his job at the white house simply because the president does not like him is unconstitutional. This situation lacks professionalism and Trump's PR team should have used some basic knowledge before allowing him to permit this unconstitutional action.
Reagan Thompson, 2 PM Class
It is very possible that Jim Acosta was attacked and had his press pass revoked solely because he worked for CNN, and Trump and his administration widely disagrees with CNN, due to political disparity. CNN often takes opportunities to criticize and give opinions about Trump and his presidency thus far. I would have to say that Acosta's first amendment right was attacked and should have not been. It protects the press. It did not this time.
Jake Parker - T/TH 11am
I do think both parties are in the wrong and should acknowledge the fact. Jim Acosta's rights were somewhat violated, considering his freedom of speech. Trump has also been out to get CNN every since running for office, so considering that he is singling out a CNN reporter, it just reflects poorly on the administration. Although the president has the right to "strip any reporter of White House press credentials", I don't think Acosta acted "disorderly," or "rude" or "grandstanding." Therefore, I think Acosta's first amendment rights were violated.
Giselle Mancha
Tue-Thur 11am
I believe that the White House revoking CNN reporter Jim Acosta’s press credentials was a major violation of the First Amendment. Jim Acosta should have the freedom of press, and also freedom of speech. He should’ve been allowed to ask President Trump any question, as long as he behaved appropriately, which he did. One of the reasons why he was most likely revoking a press pass to him was due to the news outlet Jim Acosta is coming from. President trump has many times called several news outlets, “fake news.” He didn’t allow Jim Acosta to finish his entire question, others around him, were trying to get his microphone, and didn’t allow him to finish which I believe could count as a violation of freedom of speech.
Anna V. 2 p.m. class
I do believe Jim Acosta’s First Amendment rights were violated. Donald Trump is, after all, in a position to be criticized. I do feel that whoever called for Acosta’s press pass to be revoked is in the wrong. It seems that First Amendment rights have been under attack given the series of exchanges between Trump and the press. The only way I could see the White House having the power and authority to reject a journalist’s press pass is if they were a serious threat to others which, in this case, Acosta was not. He was simply doing his job. I think if we allow people in positions of power to silence those who question them, this can lead to serious consequences within our democracy and rights as citizens.
Erin Oglesby
T/TH 2 p.m.
I believe that the revoking of Jim Acosta's press pass was a violation of his First Amendment rights if it was truly only revoked because he was doing his job and asking questions. In the NPR report, they mentioned that he "put his hands on someone" in the room and if that is true, I can understand why they would revoke his press pass. However, I feel like that is a cop out excuse used by those who want to ban him because they know that just banning him because the president doesn't like him is a violation of the First Amendment. I don't believe that the White House should have the authority to revoke press passes from people that work for networks that generally oppose the president simply because the president doesn't like their questions. If we were to give them that power, we would only hear what the administration wants us to hear and that would be detrimental for our country.
I think we can all agree that Donald Trump is the poster-child of why you shouldn't lie on your resume. He is clearly not qualified for this position and every time I see him attempt to know what he is doing I think:
"Who the heck hired this toupee to run the country?!"
We as media law students know you can't just revoke someone's press pass due to the fact that you don't like what they are saying because it infringes on their First Amendment rights. However, Donnie here hasn't read a book in his entire life, thus he has no idea that his actions are unconstitutional. And what's so funny is that everyone just follows his lead because he's the president. I bet his daily activities include googling Youtube vidz like
"How to run a country"
OR
"How to look like I know what I am doing when I have absolutely no idea what I am doing"
I want to add that I'm not a Democrat and this is by no means a political attack on Donnie, but he is NOT qualified for this job and should have been let go after the 90 day trial period (that's an HR joke).
Also, I think Acosta's obedient response was commendable because he knew that was an unconstitutional call by the Whitehouse and personally I would have gone full ghetto and been like, "cash me outside howbow dah."
Lastly, I think this whole circus charade proves the importance of taking Gilbert Martinez's Media Law class. Hear me out, I know it's been hard, but without this knowledge, people like Donald Trump can and will abuse their power. Media Law is like the instruction guide and rules to the game of Life and you have to know them or else the evil politicians will just bump your player off the board because they don't like that you're winning-- and they can't do that!
cheers,
Alicia Sherrill
TR 2 p.m. class
Gisselle Sanchez TTH 2:00-3:20 PM
Revoking Acostas’s press pass was in the wrong! Acosta was pressing hard for an answer from the president but I do not agree with Trump and his administration and what they have made the scene out to be. Also that intern was NOT assaulted. Quite ridiculous that that’s what the media has tried to twist to and make it seem like. The intern was trying to take away the microphone from Acosta while he was trying to get answers for the press. The white house is in the wrong for revoking right into the white house and rejecting his press pass. He’s a reporter, it’s his job and it seems as though our first amendment rights don’t mean anything! What about our rights? Freedom of speech? This is a violation to the first amendment. Trump needs to understand that as president he IS REQUIRED to answers questions with respect and not try to run around the question.
I believe that the White House is wrong in revoking Acosta's press pass. While the president may believe otherwise, the White House is not his kingdom. It is the house of the American people. The press represents the people, and in taking away Acosta's pass, the first amendment is being violated. If we were to give the president the power to control this aspect of speech, then where does this power end? Legally, this becomes a muddy subject. As a citizen, I can only hope to see a higher standard put forth by the White House, and the president, in the future.
Haley Brunnert, 2pm class
Blake Bouffard
T/TH 2pm
I think that revoking Costa is a bit much, but I think that it is in every president's right to speak freely about who he wishes and to grant access to who he/she will speak with. Yes, this may not be a popular opinion, but we can see that the Trump administration does not take anything from anyone. In a way he is attributing his rights to what is government property, but for the time being...Trump is a vast percentage of the government, especially when pertaining to who has a press pass to the Whitehouse. I do think that Costa has all the right in the world to speak freely about who ever sits in power and he will surely continue. If anything, I see more free speech being pushed out from him and the left side in the near future. This may put a bad taste in the mouths of many American's but the only way to have growth of free speech is simply when it is challenged. So, with that being said I see a lot of good that can come from a situation like this.
Carly N.
T/Th 11am
Revoking Acosta’s press pass was so wrong in my opinion. This one hundred percent breaks the free speech rule on the first amendment. It honestly makes no sense to me that the president can have that kind of authority just because he got butthurt. The White House should not be able to have the power to take away someone’s rights because they don’t agree. Trump and CNN have clearly never been on the same page, but as a person of power and a leader of this country people won’t agree with you and you have to learn how to deal with that. Also the situation wasn’t even bad he asked a question like everyone else and then it just blew up from there.
Robert Byrd - T/Th 2:00pm
My thoughts on this are much like my thought on almost everything political and that is both sides really could have handled thing better but hindsight is 20/20. All politics aside from this I think his fist amendment rights were violated but that doesn't mean how he handled himself is fine. You should be able remove a person from a press conference if the behavior is bad but if its a first time they've had to be removed I think revoking there press pass completely is a bit extreme. You don't expel a student for acting up in class one time so that same logic can be applied here. It will be interesting to see how the rest of the this unfolds since they just temporally restored his pass.
This isn't a purely "legal" issue that can be separated from the overall political struggle taking place. Norms are breaking down so quickly and in so many areas that the veneer of institutional stability is breaking apart.
The republic is in pretty bad shape if this is how the "leading elements" behave. Acosta doing his best performance art piece as a "noble journalist" sticking it to The Man, and Trump performing the roll of a circus ring leader. This seems like a pretty plain attempt to limit and censor the media, but for the love of God, these professional journalists do not make it easy to root for them. Does Acosta think he's going to actually ask that one devastating question that will bring the Trump administration crumbling? There seems to be no shortage of people willing to draw parallels between Trump and Nixon, but this only further vindicates Marx's lamentation that history repeats itself, but first as tragedy, then as farce.
Sure, Trump boots Acosta out for being a loud mouthed jerk, and CNN loses their minds over "free speech," but Marc Lamont Hill gives a speech in support of Palestinian rights and they turn around an immediately shit-can him. Because it's a little private fiefdom, a tyranny unto itself, the law has nothing to say about his free speech.
Legally, then private property/profits > free speech.
But yeah, I hope the terminally insufferable Acosta gets to keep his hard pass purely to spite Trump, but the law is such a labyrinthine series of logical switchbacks, it's basically impossible for a layperson to be able to accurately guess the outcome of a conflict like this.
Alyssa Cox
T/TH 2:00 p.m.
I think there was a lot of wrong in this situation. The President should have the guts to answer the hard questions he is asked, but lets be honest that isn't going to happen. Acosta should have kept better composer, Trump not giving an answer and telling him to give the mic up is enough to get a story going or spark the conversation. and that intern should have acted more professional and not have tried to grab the mic. I am sure there was another mic and that they could have turned the volume on Acosta's off in order to allow the next reporter to have a turn. I don't know if this is attacking the first amendment rights of Acosta, because he still has the ability to go and tell his story and opinions on the administration. However, like one of these reports said, and what we have heard in class before, revoking his press pass has the potential to create a chilling effect. If the administration has the ability to kick out whoever they feel has not acted appropriately, then that leads to a room full of reporter that will favor Trump and vice versa. And with the way things have gone so far, I wouldn't be surprised if a code of conduct was issued for reporters or something.
Acosta's press pass being revoked was definitely an abuse of the 1st amendment. Especially because of Trump's on going feud with CNN makes it a complete abuse of his power. I'm glad that he did not back down and that CNN used legal action to ensure that the 1st amendment is protected.
Rebekah Perez TTH 2:00 p.m.
Considering the president's history of beefing with members of the press, and the media in general, it's hard to see this as anything other than an abuse of power by the president. History has proven that the press needs strict protection with regards to the first amendment. The supreme court has made it very clear in their rulings that the press need to be protected in order to keep the government in check and to keep the people informed of everything the government does. Having a president pick and choose which media outlets are allowed at press conferences sounds less like a republic and more like a dictatorship. Not that members of the press shouldn't keep a certain level of professionalism at press conferences, but I think the President of the United States should have a reasonable expectation to keep calm in these situations. If they are going to take someone's press pass away, it should only be after a thorough investigation of that journalist's conduct, not just because the president says so.
Elizabeth Flores - T/TH 11 am
This whole situation with revoking media correspondent Jim Acosta's press credentials is so wrong to me. I believe it does violate the first amendment in this case. Although Acosta was saying stuff that Trump didn't agree with, he still has a right to free speech. I understand how Acosta not sitting down when asked to could cause some trouble, but completely revoking his press pass IS absolutely extreme. I mean someone shouldn't be able to do this just because they don't agree with they're saying. It's honestly just childish af, but then again look who we have as a president......like c'mon now Trump should know by now that the press WILL ask him questions that he's not going to like and should already be prepared on how to handle those situations RESPECTFULLY.
Vivian Medina
Online
I believe that Jim Acosta's revocation of his press credentials is a complete violation of the first amendment. The White House should not be allowed to reject press passes just because Donald Trump was offended by a question asked by the CNN reporter. If that were the case, there would not be any reporters left in the room. However, one good thing came out of the situation and that is that rivals such as CNN and FOX News were able to come together for this cause. Overall, I am glad that Acosta's credentials were finally restored.
Jerremy Hall - T/Th 11am
In all honesty, I am the least bit surprised of the Presidents' actions to muffle and attempt to silence the media that has been ridiculing him since his election. All personal opinions aside about President Trump, I am outraged by his lackluster attempts to censor the media, and paves way to set a precedent in the future allowing government officials elected later on to behave the same way. As a public official, you are expected to face criticism, and I see time and time again that he is not comfortable with this ideology. I agree that Jim Acosta's First Amendment rights are in jeopardy, considering his right to free speech is, in fact, being restrained and restricted, which in my opinion, sheds a very poor light on the administration as a whole. With that being said, I look forward to the next presidential election cycle in 2020 and couldn't be more excited to vote.
Araceli Medrano
T/Th 11 am
I personally feel that the White House violated the first amendment right. President Trump is a joke. I saw the footage from multiple different sources and not once did the CNN reporter “touch” the young lady. He grabbed the mic firmly so she wouldn’t take it away. Everyone knows Trump is against CNN because they don’t believe in his methods and they’re not conservative like FOX, so I think this is just a vendetta against any and all reporters that do not agree with him.
Sam McCarthy, T/Th 2 PM
I personally believe that the White House is in the wrong for revoking Acosta's pass, and it is an infringement on the First Amendment. I don't think the White House should have the ability to deny journalists entry simply because they don't like them. Anyone who goes and gets a press pass through all normal means should be allowed to keep it unless they do something heinous like actual physical assault, which is not what Acosta did.While I don't think that Acosta is the best reporter, as his questions seem somewhat leading and overly-aggressive, but he did nothing wrong and shouldn't be banned simply because the President doesn't like him. I think the whole situation is a tad ridiculous and unbecoming of a democratic government.
Personally, I believe just because Acosta didn't correct his behavior of speaking up just because Trump asked him to is condemable. It is wrong to avoke his first amendments rights for not speaking gently againt the presedent. As stated before in this course, " If you agree to being in the public sphere you agree to being at scrutiny of the mercy of the press.."
The white house should not have taken the liberty of stripping him the right of his first amendment right. The president should understand that the people desire the wishes to gain this access in information the news outlets that differ from the views of the president does not make it okay to try to shut them off.
I strongly believe that in this situation the First Amendment rights are being violated. Under the circumstances, Jim Acosta was doing his job as a journalist. According to the First Amendment, one of the freedoms is freedom on the press. Even if the White House holds authority over who gets a press pass and who does not, it definitely does not give them the right to revoke a reporter's pass just because they ask questions that concerns not only the citizens of the U.S. but also the people of the world.
Mariam Elhommoud, 11 a.m.
I do believe that stripping Jim Acosta of his press pass was a violation of the 1st amendment, and I also agree with the statement in the CNN article about this bringing about a chilling effect had the White House succeeded. In my opinion of the situation, President Trump, no matter the strength of his opinions and the power he has among his administration, has no right to even attempt to have the power of which publications or journalists will be covering his public appearances. I am glad that the judge who saw this case ruled that the White House behaved badly in taking his pass in the first place, that was definitely a win in the 1st Amendment's favor.
Maddie Duplechin
T/Th 2 p.m.
The Trump Administration has done nothing but actively suppress the press and their right to free speech and media coverage of the government since taking office. Taking Jim Acosta's press pass away for "rude" behavior is not only arbitrary, but a gross mis-use of power in an attempt to produce a chilling effect on news outlets. Also, the fact that Trump Administration claimed he assaulted a woman at the press conference only to later revoke their statement shows just how far they are willing to go to protect themselves from critics. It also calls into question their credibility, and therefore their qualifications for being in one of the highest positions of power in the country.
trevor Minnich, T TH 2-3:20, Ao4514115
I think it can only be seen as a wrong. Although the federal government has the power to issue and revoke press passes, It was wrong of the president to revoke Acosta's press pass on the basis of him just doing his job. It can definitely be seen as a breach of First Amendment rights in the guise of censorship though. To revoke a reporters press pass simply because you don't like them, their reputation or their questions is censorship from a higher power of authority that does not want to be questioned unless it presents them in a favorable light.
Post a Comment