|
|
Post by markesq on Nov 14, 2018 13:00:30 GMT -5
celawson said: " Acosta is the one who is harming freedom of the press by taking away precious minutes for other reporters from other networks to get their fair turn at questions."
Which, honestly, makes no sense. By that reasoning, any time a reporter stands up and asks a question he's harming press freedom by taking minutes away from other reporters. See how that argument kinda fails?!
And then: "Acosta is not banned from reporting or watching a live feed of the press conferences, and CNN can have other reporters in the conferences. "
Very true. So you'd be OK with the WH allowing ONE reporter in to ask questions, while the other 149 stand outside and watch and report on answers. If you're OK with that, your mindless support for an authoritarian regime is duly noted. If you are NOT OK with that, please show me where the line is. I mean, how many reporters can be excluded and watch from the outside before your dictator alarms start going off.
Also, you use phrases like "disrupt" and "grandstand" which I should point out are not matters of fact, but matters of your opinion. The word "disrupt" is particularly chilling for a news reporter to hear, because ANY president could say that about ANY reporter when he doesn't like their questions. And if it's a good enough basis for banning someone... good bye free press.
|
|
|
|
Post by CG Admin on Nov 14, 2018 13:01:59 GMT -5
Only two people on this board have the expertise to read the precedent and opine on whether or not this is a good case for Acosta/CNN. No. It doesn't require "expertise" to read case law or to offer an opinion on whether or not a given case is "good" or "strong." And no. Anyone can opine on a medical issue; such an opinion doesn't need to be couched in the above form, at all. Now, people with expertise (from work, schooling, etc.) will generally be able to offer better arguments to support their opinions, and they will likely be able to dismantle flawed arguments from others. That's the way it goes. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2018 13:05:16 GMT -5
celawson said: " Acosta is the one who is harming freedom of the press by taking away precious minutes for other reporters from other networks to get their fair turn at questions." Which, honestly, makes no sense. By that reasoning, any time a reporter stands up and asks a question he's harming press freedom by taking minutes away from other reporters. See how that argument kinda fails?! And then: "Acosta is not banned from reporting or watching a live feed of the press conferences, and CNN can have other reporters in the conferences. " Very true. So you'd be OK with the WH allowing ONE reporter in to ask questions, while the other 149 stand outside and watch and report on answers. If you're OK with that, your mindless support for an authoritarian regime is duly noted. If you are NOT OK with that, please show me where the line is. I mean, how many reporters can be excluded and watch from the outside before your dictator alarms start going off. Also, you use phrases like "disrupt" and "grandstand" which I should point out are not matters of fact, but matters of your opinion. The word "disrupt" is particularly chilling for a news reporter to hear, because ANY president could say that about ANY reporter when he doesn't like their questions. And if it's a good enough basis for banning someone... good bye free press. Which would be why Fox News is joining CNN's cause here. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2018 13:06:30 GMT -5
Only two people on this board have the expertise to read the precedent and opine on whether or not this is a good case for Acosta/CNN. No. It doesn't require "expertise" to read case law or to offer an opinion on whether or not a given case is "good" or "strong." And no. Anyone can opine on a medical issue; such an opinion doesn't need to be couched in the above form, at all. Now, people with expertise (from work, schooling, etc.) will generally be able to offer better arguments to support their opinions, and they will likely be able to dismantle flawed arguments from others. That's the way it goes. I disagree completely. What c.e. has done here is find an expert opinion that supports her point of view. I am pretty confident here, based on what she's said, that she knows exactly squat about the underlying law, and I think it's legitimate of me to point it out. And yes, it does require some expertise to read case law and opine on whether a case is good or strong. That's why people go to law school. But here, I think that's beside the point, since that's not what c.e. has done. |
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Nov 14, 2018 13:42:27 GMT -5
Um.....I'm not even sure what to say here. Maybe any time there's a legal discussion, it should be limited only to the lawyers on this board?
There are plenty of lawyers who think the CNN lawsuit is bogus. Not simply Dershowitz. (Though he IS an expert on constitutional law. Are you? Maybe that disqualifies you from this conversation as well. See? We can take this to absurd levels.)
And really, you opine on all sorts of issues you have no degree in. Do you need an economics degree or need to be a CPA to talk about tax regulation? If so, maybe only Christine can comment on the Ocasio-Cortez thread. Holy heck.
I'm sort of flabbergasted on this one. If the "common man or woman" can be jurors in court, I don't see why I can't form an opinion based on what experts are saying about this, and contribute that opinion to a discussion board.
|
|
|
|
Post by markesq on Nov 14, 2018 14:04:11 GMT -5
Well, sure, anyone CAN opine on a given subject, of course. But the notion that a lawyer might be better placed to render an informed opinion on legal matters (or a doctor on medical ones) is hardly worthy of outrage.
And, funnily enough, celawson you have entirely proven that point with your last sentence: "If the 'common man or woman' can be jurors in court, I don't see why I can't form an opinion based on what experts are saying about this, and contribute that opinion to a discussion board."
Jurors are deciders of fact, not law. Did something happen, or did it not? That's all they decide, they certainly do not contemplate or interpret matters of law. No, the Judge remains the decider on ALL matters of law, and the relevant law is spoon-fed to the jurors in a charge at the end.
Would I expect you to know this? No, of course not, because you're not a lawyer. But I think that supports the point Cass was making.
|
|
|
|
Post by CG Admin on Nov 14, 2018 14:26:36 GMT -5
This is what Cass said that prompted me to post:
Whether or not the first part of the above is true (I don't think it is, actually*), the fact of the matter is that ON THIS BOARD anyone can opine on anything, can offer their point of view. End of story.
Any variation of "because you're not a [any given profession], you can't offer an opinion on this topic," isn't going to be allowed. Why? Because it's an appeal to authority, an argumentum ad verecundiam. In and of itself, such a fallacious argument could be simply pointed out, if it was of the form because "you're not a [any given profession], your opinion is wrong." But using it to imply someone can't opine won't be tolerated.
Clear?
* Using myself as an example, I can and do read case law. And I can offer reasoned opinions on legal issues. My lack of a law degree doesn't automatically make me wrong or my opinions invalid. But I do recognize that people with law degrees have a greater breadth and depth on knowledge of the law in general than me.
|
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Nov 14, 2018 14:40:52 GMT -5
Look, this is just a discussion board. I will gladly step out if I'm truly out of line about this. And no, I'm not outraged, just really shocked that two of you think I shouldn't post a damn opinion about a lawsuit because I don't have J.D. after my name.
I never said I'm better at this than any lawyer here. I never said I was outraged, just flabbergasted. (Still am) I didn't even proclaim Acosta would lose. I just said I don't think it's the slam dunk you are saying it is. And no, I'm not going to just accept what two Trump-hating lawyers proclaim, simply because they're lawyers. Especially when I've read the opposite from other experts.
I think it's a really elitist attitude for a general discussion board.
Let's just be clear once more - this is not a court of law, and our little discussion board isn't going to decide anything -- the actual courts are. But just so there was a little balance restored to this discussion, I thought it prudent to point out the other perspective and I cited a Constitutional law expert who disagrees with you and Cass. Yes, people actually do disagree with you two on this. To that degree, I ADDED to this discussion, rather than let it stand that there is no other possibility to a lawsuit against stupid and lying Trump than for CNN to be vindicated.
So maybe even though I'm not all that smart, nor learned in the law arena, at least both perspectives were mentioned on this thread, which is more than can be said before I ventured into lawyers-only territory.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikey on Nov 14, 2018 15:00:48 GMT -5
"Deplorables" indeed
|
|
|
|
Post by markesq on Nov 14, 2018 16:10:47 GMT -5
Since we're all being super clear, I never said non-lawyers shouldn't be allowed to express an opinion. I said the opposite, in fact. I agree that an appeal to authority is a shitty way to present an argument. I was merely pointing out that, imo, lawyers might be better placed to express legal opinions. And to point out, which no one has addressed, the example that sometimes people don't know what they don't know.
Anyway, I've said my piece and am all for the discussion to return to the antics of Jim Acosta, the WH, and the first amendment.
|
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Nov 15, 2018 15:23:10 GMT -5
I actually don't think it's a slam dunk Acosta will win. He doesn't have a right to consistently disrupt these press conferences and keep other reporters from asking questions so he can grandstand. Actually, Acosta is the one who is harming freedom of the press by taking away precious minutes for other reporters from other networks to get their fair turn at questions. Acosta is not banned from reporting or watching a live feed of the press conferences, and CNN can have other reporters in the conferences. And prozyan is being sarcastic in his post just above, I'm sure, but actually, this IS harassment of Trump. No. This is not harassment of Trump. This is part of Trump's job. It's been part of the job for every occupant in the White House and this guy does not get a pass. You're viewing this through the lens of a partisan who takes umbrage at how the press treats your president. Sometimes the press deserves a trip to the woodshed, but this is not one of those times and even the most unlikely people know it. There's harassment going on here all right and Trump is the one doing it. What a crock of shit.  Jim Acosta is a member of the press and freedom of the press is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. This is not about whether Acosta is a jerky reporter. This is about whether the supposed POTUS who calls the press the enemy of the people and dismisses any story he dislikes as "FAKE NEWS!", can prevent a jerky reporter from doing his job by pulling his credentials. If your country means more to you than your political party, you'd better hope Trump can't. Once we go down that road, the U.S. won't have a free press anymore. It will be just like some banana republic totalitarian regime where El Supreme Leader tells the state run media what they can or cannot report. Presidents come and presidents go, but there must be someone who will hold them accountable and with Trump the Republicans have made it clear they won't. Trump is right when he says reporters should respect the presidency, but respect is as far as it goes. Trump is not royalty and America has no kings. It has a free press and their job is to ask the questions Trump would rather not answer and find out the things Trump would rather they not know. By the way, Jim Acosta's beat is "White House Correspondent." Having his access to the White House stripped from him makes it impossible to do his job. If Trump is allowed to get away with this fuckery, it won't stop at Acosta. |
|
|
|
Post by markesq on Nov 16, 2018 10:49:58 GMT -5
Well, that didn't take long. NBC is reporting: Judge says the White House “must provide due process if they are to revoke Mr. Acosta’s hard pass." On Acosta "laying hands" on WH intern, judge says that's "likely untrue."
Agree x2.
|
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Nov 16, 2018 10:56:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Nov 16, 2018 11:00:41 GMT -5
I'm surprised the ruling came down so fast. That's good, I guess. I'm not clear on what this will mean going forward, though. For one thing, I suppose Acosta will be getting the worst seat in the house at every future press conference, and I can't imagine he'll be getting many turns with the mic.
Or then again--Trump being Trump--maybe it will be exactly the opposite: Trump giving Acosta a front row seat and the mic, just so there will be this constant sparring (which in my view isn't helpful at all).
|
|
|
|
Post by markesq on Nov 16, 2018 11:08:47 GMT -5
I'm surprised the ruling came down so fast. That's good, I guess. I'm not clear on what this will mean going forward, though. For one thing, I suppose Acosta will be getting the worst seat in the house at every future press conference, and I can't imagine he'll be getting many turns with the mic. Or then again--Trump being Trump--maybe it will be exactly the opposite: Trump giving Acosta a front row seat and the mic, just so there will be this constant sparring (which in my view isn't helpful at all). You know, you raise a really good point. One might wonder what would happen if he's treated badly, allowed in but a seat in the back corner and no mic time. Another lawsuit? In theory it might be justified, since it makes no sense that a reporter would be allowed in but treated separately and unequally. That said, I'd be less than happy at a sled-load of litigation because nailing down the edges of the first amendment is nigh impossible.
Also, this is something (imo) adults should be able to sort out at this point.
|
|
