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

[RoadRunner79]

I think that it is a fairly liberal interpretation of the constitution, to say that freedom of speech and freedom of the press where violated here.  They are not limiting at all, what Acosta says or writes about.  What they are limiting is his access to the White house.   An individuals access at that.   They are not saying that CNN is not allowed, or that any who ask hard questions are not allowed.   This was one individual.  I can also understand, because, I think that Acosta is not interested in answers at all, but mostly grandstands, and talks to hear his own voice. I can't just demand a pass, and claim that these rights have been violated, because they don't give it to me.   I don't think that Alex Jones should be given a press pass, and it's likely that many who are complaining about this, would complain about that, if it was.

I think that who the White House grants access is up to them.   It's a privilege, not a right.  It may raise some questions if the scope of this was broader, and almost all reporters who disagreed with the President where shut out, but that is not the case.   It's only one individual.

With that being said;  I do think that some of the statements about Acosta placing his hands on the intern where both overstated and overblown.  Watching the video with a little bit charity, his pushing her away, could easily be explained as reactionary and was by no means violent (which I think, if you only listened to some of the commentary; one might think, that it was a bigger deal than what it was).  I think that the White House has a right to not allow his aggressive and self centered behavior.  Which is my opinion anyway.  However I think this was the straw that broke the camels back, not single incident which merited such and is reported by some.

I'm not sure what the focus of your question is.  I haven't read widely on the matter, including the specifics of the judge's opinion, but my understanding is that he did not rule on that constitutional issue.  Am I wrong or are you instead posing a rather vaguely defined hypothetical?

I have heard some things said, but haven't read it either.  I am going off of what people have said here and what I have heard.   If there is good reason that the constitution applies in this matter, then I'm happy to hear it.  I don't see how it does, or why the 5th or 1st amendments are being brought up.