Exactly right. It's good to see some people here on the same page about this. I'm finding even a lot of Objectivists don't seem to get it, sadly.

I have no idea but like most things, there's probably a "pecking order" at WH Press briefings, and he's probably at the top of it, based on his long history with CNN. Any junior reporter (to him) would likely have big penalties to pay among his/her fellow press members, I bet.

A-ha! Here's how seating is determined:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/he...

this is an old article, but go ahead and read down a bit, and you will find this: "Though President Trump has gone on the attack against organizations like CNN and The New York Times, labeling them "fake news" in response to unflattering stories that often depend on leaks, the White House has allowed the WHCA to choose the seating chart for the past two administrations."

I had a feeling - now confirmed - that the plot was a LOT thicker than I figured. That's true in almost everything political, isn't it? Nevertheless, it doesn't explain why they continue to call on Acosta. I'm sure there's a reason for that I don't understand, either!

Even if Acosta is let in to the WH again, it beats me why Sarah or the president are calling on him?

Let him scream but ignore him.

Then they can sue for being ignored. Is that a Constitutional violation?

I think speech is speech. Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me.

The libs are saying tht people with uncontrollable emotions will be hurt by words. Maybe they should learn how to deal with their emotions.

Call Judge Jeanine a murderer and see how much that distresses her- she would probably just consider you crazy and that would be the end of it.

"Technically" Peter is entirely correct. Private property rights and exercise of freedom of speech are not violations of others' freedom for not providing them with what they want. Only government coercion can violate freedom of speech under the Constitution and in morality, which includes no entitlements to use others' private property or muzzle them.

Ethnicity, race, 'hate speech', and 'discrimination' laws all violate the rights of the individuals they control. Don't accept their statist premises.

You can read Ayn Rand's analysis in The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, especially "The Cashing-In: The Student 'Rebellion'". and much more.

Most writers and speakers of today need lessons on the Constitution's amendment one and further lessons on how the framers based their rules of the country on an Indian tribe that had many years of peaceful prosperity..

Right, I heard the judge was appointed by Trump. He may have felt it necessary to rule that way, because just imagine the uproar if he ruled opposite!

Also, this is just a preliminary ruling, not a verdict, so it results in the re-issuance of the pass, but that doesn't make it forever. Time will tell. And -Fifth amendment? Nuts.

Apparently the verdict was based on some narrow interpretation of the 5th Amendment.

It is not clear to me how that applies.

The judge was appointed by Trump.

It is obvious that the judicial system acts as if they were in control of the country.

Technically, you're not entirely correct. States do enforce violations of rights routinely against private enterprise. Just because not many want to buck the current social trend doesn't mean free speech rights couldn't be enforced against private enterprise.

Private establishments used to post signs saying they can refuse service to anyone, but that no longer holds true, and lawsuits have been successful in punishing establishments who've refused service to law abiding customers as an act of discrimination. Case in point: the Colorado baker sued for not baking a cake celebrating gay marriage. He won that case as a violation by the state of his religious freedom. However, he only won because the Colorado board that oversaw charges of rights violations made blatantly antireligious statements for the record.

Some states have considered abolishing gun free zones created by private entities as a violation of the 2nd amendment, but no one has so far enacted any legislation to that effect. I suspect they've left that one alone for fear state government might be challenged for gun free areas they establish. Lawsuits against the principle of gun free zones I suspect would fail because the SCOTUS has declared it lawful to establish "prudent" refinements to the conditions under which bearing arms is lawful.

Perversely, back in the 1960s, students at Berkeley were successful in a suit against the college for its obscenity laws as a violation of free speech. Now the students want any non-progressive speech banned by the same university.

jAcosta is a self-promoting celebrity wannabe, not a reporter. Chris Wallace at Fox is little better with his rude, chest beating desire to be noticed. Neither is about reporting calmly the story and facts without personal bias. We heard Hillary promise to tamper with the First Amenment, at her rallies, when she said she would make discussion of global warming a CRIME, and would ban political dissent from the Internet. I don't like the way censorship is applied to liberal websites, but the answer is to find opposing sites which ban liberals.I thik anything short of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, which does not endanger anyone should be allowed. However, Maxine and Farrakhan are inciting violence, and should be charged.

Other reporters at the communist news network say privately that Acosta is an A'Hole and an embarrassment to all reporters.

I was all revved up to give exactly your answer! Dang....you go there before me. Almost all the "Rights" people sue over are prohibitions against government power detailed in the constitution. Things like the right to a cake from a bakery that doesn't want to make you one is only a bastardization of the constitution which was done using the interstate commerce clause and the equal protection clause.

YES! and they are getting away with it.

It's not hate unless followed with a punch in the face!

I just read that the judge has ordered the press pass be given back (at least temporarily). WHY???? IS there a constitutional right to attend a press briefing? I don't understand....

I hope at least they put him in the BACK of the room and FOR GAWD's sake don't call on him!

Anyone can commit the crime of murder but ONLY the government can violate free speech.
Free speech deals specifically with the issue of state controlling what you can or can't say.
Murder is completely unrelated and is not in any way analogous to the issue of free speech.

So if I kill someone and do it as a privage enterprise, is it my right to do so because only the goverment can violate someone's right to live?

I agree with you actually although I would Find a different argument than that

No.
The reason is that only the government can violate freedom of speech.
Private enterprise (like social media) has every right to ban, kick, de-platform, etc.
That IS free speech and to try and stop them using the government, as many conservatives are sadly suggesting, would be an actual violation of free speech. Along with many other rights.

Well, anyone can sue anyone but that doesn't mean they'll win anything. A jerk is a jerk and Acosta is a Certified Jerk! These people are so scared of Trump it is embarrassing!

Of course it is.

But since it is the left doing it, it is considered legitimate.

CNN is suing the WH to reinstate Acosta's status.

He has clearly been a rude promoter of hate about everything the president does. But that does not make CNN think that the WH was right banning him.