Thread by @Monaheart1229

"The gov't continues to claim broad authority to deny reporters access to the WH for asking tough questions. And no Constitutional 1st Amend right to WH access.." THIS MATTERS, kids! #TuesdayThoughts #FreePress
politico.com/magazine/story…

2-"...Once the White House has decided to hold a press briefing, it can’t constitutionally use formal levers of power, like the revocation of a hard pass, to retaliate against a reporter for asking questions the government doesn’t like or for coverage the administration resents.

3-"That’s content-based retaliation for protected speech; and its prohibition is a central First Amendment principle...the revocation of Acosta’s hard pass escalates a broader trend by this White House to retaliate against media whose reporting it doesn’t like and to wield such

4-"retaliation so as to intimidate other media. At least three specific concerns linger. First, the legal position asserted by the government here threatens serious constitutional harm. A White House reporter needs a hard pass to cover the White House; revoking it in response to

5-"tough questioning is a constitutionally impermissible attempt to intimidate reporters into not asking those tough questions. Were that legal, the White House could skew the public narrative in its favor by surrounding itself with a fawning press. As we’re seeing around the

6-"world in places like Russia and Hungary, an intimidated and thus enfeebled news media enables autocracy.Second, the government argued that CNN wasn’t harmed because it could simply replace Acosta with another credentialed journalist. Again, the White House is arguing that it

7-"can use formal levers of power to handpick friendly faces. But the selection of which reporters should cover the White House is a call for an independent media to make, not the White House. This is a dangerous position as applied to a single outlet; it’s a clear and present

8-"danger to our freedoms the moment it is applied more widely. Finally, the new White House rules could make things worse. The president and White House officials have always been free to decline to answer follow-up questions, but now a reporter could lose her credentials just

9-"for trying to ask a second question. The White House could also decide that a reporter failed to sufficiently “yield the floor” as a pretext for revoking a hard pass—especially dangerous if the real motivation is driven by the content of the reporter’s question or coverage of

10-"the White House.Many things make America great, but nothing is more important than our First Amendment. This month’s judicial decision was the start of a long overdue conversation about the way that Trump has threatened our deepest constitutional values.

11-"We should not be fooled by the fact that Acosta has his hard pass back. The real battles are yet to come."
~Katyal & Brown, 12/4/18, Politico