White House Says Access Is a 'Privilege' in Court Filing Defending Media Ban(www.nytimes.com)
20 pointsby whack3 hours ago4 comments
  • frogpersonan hour ago
    Rights must be demanded and defended constanrly, otherwise some tin pot dictator will take them without much of a fight.

    Do you what your rights or not?

    • AndrewKemendoan hour ago
      If someone else can take it away it was never a right
      • onjectican hour ago
        The right to say useless crap on the internet seems to be in no immediate danger.
      • skinfaxian hour ago
        People can take your life from you, do you not have the right to live?
        • AndrewKemendoan hour ago
          No you don’t, thousands of people are murdered everyday

          There is nothing and nobody guaranteeing your life

          • AlotOfReading39 minutes ago
            There's perfectly legitimate ways to argue against the existence of natural rights (see Bentham), but this strawman ain't it.
            • AndrewKemendo18 minutes ago
              At least someone’s done some research on the topic

              My guess is that the crowd here needs to go and actually do a little bit more philosophical reading maybe start with deleuze

          • onjectic28 minutes ago
            Your original comment technically isn’t even wrong, it’s just the definition of “right” written in a backwards ass way. Unfortunately for you this latest comment proves that this was just an accident!
          • maxerickson30 minutes ago
            Do you really think this is an interesting line of interrogation?

            When we speak of rights, we speak of limits that should apply to our government and the actions of others, not of iron laws of the universe.

          • mthomsan hour ago
            That's not what a "right" is.
      • mock-possum28 minutes ago
        If you frame it that way we have hardly any rights at all though - it would completely preclude rights like free speech, assembly, fair trial etc

        So what’s the use in using that framing? What good is it?

  • legitster2 hours ago
    What's crazy is when asked at one point, Trump specifically referred to it as the "ban on free press". So rhetorically it's not like he's dancing around the constitutionality.
    • Neywinyan hour ago
      First term was somewhat coy. Second term is "yes we're violating the Constitution/law. What are you gonna do about it? Nothing? Ok cool I'll go do that again" over and over and over
      • LocalH8 minutes ago
        Absolute treason
  • dataflowan hour ago
    I feel like this they're deliberately framing it this way to lay a trap for the courts, because accepting this framing doesn't really seem to leave a whole lot of legal wiggle room. After all, legally speaking, what is it exactly, if not a privilege? If it's a right, then basically any citizen should be allowed in, subject to fair/non-discriminatory constraints, like capacity... is/should that be the case? If it's neither then what is it?
    • bradleyjgan hour ago
      > because accepting this framing doesn't really seem to leave a whole lot of legal wiggle room.

      No, it’s not a problem. The government can’t grant or withdraw a privilege for impermissible reasons.

    • skinfaxian hour ago
      Courts navigate this fine line already even for their own courtrooms. There are restrictions on rights like time/place restrictions, for instance.
    • iAMkenoughan hour ago
      I’m curious how a Jan. 6 insurrectionist would answer this question.

      Any pardoned felons here?

  • hobonation33 minutes ago
    [dead]