Ted Olson Is Wrong, It’s About Acosta’s Behavior NOT The First Amendment [VIDEO]

Ted Olson Is Wrong, It’s About Acosta’s Behavior NOT The First Amendment [VIDEO]

Ted Olson Is Wrong, It’s About Acosta’s Behavior NOT The First Amendment [VIDEO]

As Deanna pointed out yesterday, CNN decided to go all in to protect their precious Jim “Gollum” Acosta by filing suit against the White House for daring to yank his press pass. Last night, on CNN of course, Ted Olson stridently declared that this is a major and I mean MAJOR First Amendment issue y’all!

So, the White House is not allowed to push back against their Precious? If the WH succeeds according to this logic, an incredibly dangerous precedent will be set and will stifle free speech among the press corps.

Nope. I completely disagree. Jim Acosta’s BEHAVIOR is the problem here. His full on Trump Derangement Syndrome has been escalating. Especially over the last few months.

A good reporter, one who actually practices journalism, should ask questions. Diatribes and rants espousing the reporters personal point of view is in not journalism. Period.

Jim Acosta is a jackass grandstander who has been given a pass for far too long. I can completely understand why the White House and Trump had finally had enough of his behavior.

I couldn’t agree more. As I stated above, Acosta’s behavior is the issue.

Photo Credit: Evan Vucci/Associated Press

Patterico makes some interesting points using Sherrill v Knight as a guide.

I think that “controlling a disruptive reporter who won’t surrender the mic” would clearly qualify as a compelling governmental interest. Just like judges can control their courtrooms, and remove disruptive participants, the White House has the ability to make sure that reporters take turns and don’t refuse to give up the mic (and that they don’t stand up and shout over others, April Ryan).

That said, Acosta’s behavior, while not exemplary, was not really that over the top. No, he didn’t assault the woman. Yes, he refused to give up the mic, but only briefly. Yes, it’s part of a pattern. Enough of one to avoid the legal roadblocks? That’s not clear.

Even if the White House could be justified in their decision — and I think that’s a close call — they don’t seem to have complied with the necessary procedure spelled out by the court:

We think that notice to the unsuccessful applicant of the factual bases for denial with an opportunity to rebut is a minimum prerequisite for ensuring that the denial is indeed in furtherance of Presidential protection, rather than based on arbitrary or less than compelling reasons.

The lawsuit whines that Acosta wasn’t given a chance to respond before his credentials were revoked. Many in the press have backed Jim Acosta’s reprehensible behavior as if its something to be applauded. It’s not. CNN is losing long-time viewers because of this.

 I am a supporter of CNN, but I was aghast at reporter Jim Acosta’s behavior in his exchange with President Trump. After he had received the expected distorted answer from Trump and still held the floor in debate for another minute, he should have surrendered the microphone to a reporter waiting to ask a question. His continued petulant arguing came across as selfish and grandstanding.

Jim Acosta and CNN have made it clear that their hatred of Trump is personal. Does that mean this kind of Resistance showboating can prevail in court? Personally I think Jim Acosta is a braying jackass who is being enabled by CNN and other members of the press. This frivolous lawsuit is yet another chapter in their TDS.  Given that people are named in the lawsuit who WEREN’T EVEN THERE that day and the filing is chock full of errors, it’s going to be interesting to see what the ruling will be on this case.

Welcome Instapundit Readers!

Feature Photo Credit: Evan Vucci/Associated Press

Written by

12 Comments
  • GWB says:

    I think that “controlling a disruptive reporter who won’t surrender the mic” would clearly qualify as a compelling governmental interest.
    Why is everyone fixated on the 1st Amendment requirements? This isn’t a 1st Amendment issue!
    Listen, here’s the logic if it were a 1st Amendment issue:
    The White House issues press passes to select organizations and people, in order to get the word out about all sorts of policies and issues and events. If the issuing of press passes were required in order to have freedom of the press, then they would literally have to issue them to anyone and everyone.
    Of particular note is that the press conferences are still going on. There is NO restriction on Acosta reporting on them. There is NO restriction on his bloviating about them. It’s just that he can’t be present and make the whole thing a circus, and prevent other reporters from doing their job.

    That said, Acosta’s behavior, while not exemplary, was not really that over the top.
    Bullpucky. He knocked the woman’s arm away when she reached for the mic. It’s juvenile and it’s battery.

    they don’t seem to have complied with the necessary procedure spelled out by the court
    Not even relevant. First, it isn’t a restriction on his speech (or ‘press’). Second, I am sure the badge or its associated paperwork has a “You shall surrender this badge at a moment’s notice to the Secret Service or the White House pass office, because it isn’t yours” clause on it somewhere.

    His continued petulant arguing came across as was selfish and grandstanding.
    FIFY

    This is just one more example of the degradation of our once proud and free Republic.

  • GWB says:

    BTW, I haven’t been much impressed with Olson since his one moment of glory (can’t recall what it was). He’s been called on to fight on the wrong side of a lot of issues in the last decade or so.

  • willie says:

    I would love to be able to attend that trial; it’s gonna be the entertainment of the decade

    • Pete EE says:

      If CNN judge-shops, you never know. If there’s one thing I’ve learned in the past two years, it’s that you can find a judge who will say just about anything.

      • gnome says:

        But the one thing they will all say is that they have the right to exclude anyone they consider disruptive from their court.
        And if a judge wants the reason for this action by the White House published before it can be considered legitimate, I cry HYPOCRITE.

  • TxTequilaWorm says:

    I totally support Jim. A Hard Pass to the WH is a First Amentment right. I am expecting my Hard Pass any day now. It’s my right. The WH swag that you can boost (ashtrays, glasses, pens, and small lamps) make great holiday gifts.

  • Michael K says:

    It has been pointed out elsewhere that he is free to apply for a daily pass. The “hard pass” was just a permanent one.

  • No Way says:

    “I personally wouldn’t have pulled his hard pass. I’d have made light of it, wishing him good luck getting his op-eds published.”

    And that is why we are so, so very sick of GOP Lite people like Ari F. To all GOP officials reading this: stop being Ari and start being like the current press secretary.

  • nuthinmuffin says:

    like the president stated “i’ll run the country, you run CNN”. he is a pure belligerent azzhat

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe
Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner
gisonboat
rovin_readhead
Instagram