The freedom to question
Why CNN is suing the US President
President Donald Trump during a campaign rally. (Source: The New York Times)
Plaintiff Jim Acosta has been a journalist for more than two decades. For more than five years, Acosta has been CNN’s national political correspondent and, since January 2018, he has been the network’s chief White House correspondent. Acosta has covered the White House since 2012 and, since 2013, has possessed press credentials — often called a “hard pass” — that allow him regular and unescorted access to the White House and White House briefings. He is widely reputed as a diligent and thorough reporter for one of the nation’s
most respected and widely watched networks.
most respected and widely watched networks.
But on November 7, 2018, Defendants revoked Acosta’s White House credentials because, in the President’s own words, Acosta failed to “treat the White House with respect” at a White House press briefing. This severe and unprecedented punishment is the culmination of years of hostility by President [Donald] Trump against CNN and Acosta based on the contents of their reporting — an unabashed attempt to censor the press and exclude reporters from the White House who challenge and dispute the President’s point of view.
While CNN and Acosta have been favourite targets of abuse by the administration, the President’s criticism has been directed at other news organisations too. The President has actively criticised and discredited any journalist or media outlet he believes might report something he considers negative. As the President explained to Lesley Stahl of 60 Minutes: “You know why I do it? I do it to discredit you all and demean you all so when you write negative stories about me no one will believe you.”
And the revocation of Acosta’s credentials is only the beginning; as the President explained, there “could be others also” who get their credentials revoked.
The Framers of our Constitution embraced a “profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.” [N.Y. Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964)]
The President lacks the authority to quash “[t]he sort of robust political debate encouraged by the First Amendment” — debate that is “bound to produce speech that is critical of those who hold public office.” [Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 51 (1988).
The President lacks the authority to quash “[t]he sort of robust political debate encouraged by the First Amendment” — debate that is “bound to produce speech that is critical of those who hold public office.” [Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 51 (1988).
That is why the D.C. Circuit has been clear that “the protection afforded [to] news gathering under the first amendment guarantee of freedom of the press requires that… access [to White House press facilities] not be denied arbitrarily or for less than compelling reasons.” [Sherrill v. Knight, 569 F.2d 124, 129 (D.C. Cir. 1977).] And “notice… of the factual bases for denial [of access to White House press facilities] with an opportunity to rebut is a minimum prerequisite for ensuring that the denial is… [not] based on arbitrary or less than compelling reasons.”
Plaintiffs bring this action to enforce this constitutional commitment, restore Acosta’s well-deserved press credentials, and ensure that the press remains free to question the government and to report the business of the nation to the American people.
The Defendants’ justifications for impeding Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights are hollow and hardly sufficiently compelling to justify the indefinite revocation of Acosta’s White House credentials. Consequently, the only reasonable inference from Defendants’ conduct is that they have revoked Acosta’s credentials as a form of content-and-viewpoint-based discrimination and in retaliation for Plaintiffs’ exercise of protected First Amendment activity.
The sole justification for Defendants’ conduct is their dislike for Plaintiffs’ coverage of the administration and critique of the President. But that is insufficient to justify such a substantial restriction on Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights.
As a result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer irreparable harm.
Edited excerpts from the complaint by Cable News Network (CNN), Inc. and Abilio James (“Jim”) Acosta, against Defendants Donald J Trump, John F Kelly, William Shine, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the United States Secret Service, Randolph Alles, and John Doe.
The plaintiffs have filed two causes of action: First, invoking the US Constitution’s First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression and second, that the revoking of Acosta’s pass violates his Fifth Amendment right to due process. NBC News, The Associated Press, Bloomberg, Gannett, The New York Times, Politico, USA Today, The Washington Post and Fox News, among other US news outlets, have indicated that they will file briefs supporting CNN’s lawsuit.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario