>>23132906 LB
So press is denied access if they don't report as ordered? That's blatantly unconstitutional.
That's concealed carry, and that's a long list of infringements they call restrictions.
It has been lawful to open carry on your way to or from fishing or hunt5ing, or while fishing or hunting, for many many years but Florida regularly unlawfully detains and disarms people anyway.
There's a difference between entering the house (without a warrant) and doing a protective sweep
No, no there's not. It's just semantics by domestic enemies trying to justify the violation of our constitutionally protected rights by using "officer safety" aka cowardice in the home of the brave. Those domestic enemies should be dealt with accordingly.
Freedom of press includes both the collection of and dissemination of information of public interest. The government doesn't get to pick and choose who has access to publish that information, government is supposed to be transparent.
I think you need to read that constitution again, especially the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th, and 14th. They violate those nationwide daily, but you don't care about that right?
False, YOU nor government gets to decide what they can publish nor what is truth.
>they publish false information
So the whitehouse is the ministry of Truth? Freedom of press is meant to prevent a government "friendly" press, as government doesn't get to limit to only the "friendly" press.
Access should be open to all, and chosen at random.
The whitehouse doesn't like what they publish so they don't give them access. Again, that's unconstitutional.
ALL must be given equal access.
>that's not feasible, anon.
>the logistics of that would be that the press conference would have to be held in a stadium.
Anon you need to read more carefully.
>Access should be open to all, and chosen at random.
Sooo, freedom of press?
Oh now it's "Qualified". If you're not Whitehouse friendly, you're not "qualified"
You REALLY don't understand the principles of freedom of press do you?
>Since when does the Second Amendment have anything to do with the Press?
I didn't say it did, I said "They violate those nationwide daily, but you don't care about that right?"
Seems many only care about the constitution when it aligns with their political objectives.
You know any law repugnant to the constitution is void right? Government doesn't have the authority to make half the laws idiots believe kek
>I'm done anon. you can post back to me but I won't answer you anymore.
You're a liar too.
You want a "regime" friendly press. Those who "control the flow of information" are enemies to the people when they block information to those they consider "unfriendly".
President Trump is a SERVANT of the People, HE doesn't get to pick and choose who has access to the peoples house.
Freedom of press includes both the collection of and dissemination of information.
You're talking about a seat in a room belonging to We the People, not Trump. I don't care which "side" is in the whitehouse, it's the peoples house, and the people have to have equal access, not only those "Friendly" to the president and his regime, be that Trump or Obama/Biden.
You say I falsely accuse you, but you did lie, so you are a liar. You said you wouldn't respond and you did, repeatedly. You have in fact done what you accuse me of, falsely accusing me.
The right wing and the left wing both belong to the same bird, and that bird belongs to the American People.
>no, anon, i'm not a liar.
Yet you said you would not reply to me further here >>23133133
>I'm done anon. you can post back to me but I won't answer you anymore.
So you did in fact lie, you also in fact did bear false witness when you falsely accused me
>you don't use logic nor do you care about honest reporting.
>you don't care about the liberty that the administration should have to perform to the best of their ability.
>you're what I'd call an obstructionist.
My "class" is what exactly false accuser?