Federal Judge Orders White House To Temporarily Restore Press Access To Jim Acosta

[Angrboda]

I'm not sure a discussion like this can help but devolve into a series of examples of the fallacy of the beard. The judge himself noted that the White House needed some clear criteria for determining whether to revoke someone's press credentials, and failing such standards and means of arbitration, it is impossible to say what would and would not qualify. As the judge correctly notes, without standards, any dismissal is arbitrary, and I presume, therefore unconstitutional. I would presume that banning someone for actual violations of law need not actually be spelled out. Anything in between is fair game if you let it be.

It occurs to me as an addendum, that the standards should be no less rigorous and requiring of justification than orders of protection and no tresspassing orders. You are revoking someone's rights, and that should never be simply done at someone's whim, no matter who they are or how powerful they are. We have rules and laws dealing with what the press can and can't do with respect to both private and public persons. Those rules need to be applied, not simply ignored and the pleasure of some political bully substituted in their place.