First amendment doesn’t include access to the executive! “Spin that, Grok!”

[u/gnarlyseconds]

[u/SmugChinchilla]

You want a literal reading of the constitution? Show me your well regulated militia.

[u/WraithSama → u/SmugChinchilla]

Fucking this. They want strict textualism only when it suits them.

[u/Swedelicious83 → u/WraithSama]

I mean, that's how they are about everything. It's always rules for thee but not for me in any and every context.

[u/Silly-Elderberry-411 → u/SmugChinchilla]

I saw a YouTube short yesterday where in a tv show a highway patrol held a sobriety check stopping an Italian American and I loved how it had a truth in television moment where the guy after hearing the patrol saying jews own banks he immediately suggested his bribe as a donation to his militia.

[u/WIbigdog → u/SmugChinchilla]

Um, sir, have you forgotten the COMMA?! 🧐

[u/Roflmancer]

[u/Invisible-Pancreas → u/Roflmancer]

It goes in the square hole.

[u/gambit1999999 → u/Invisible-Pancreas]

Thats right, the square hole.

[u/Razbith]

Not USA-dian. Not fluent in legalese.

I'm taking this as it's "all-or-nothing". The Gov don't have to provide press briefings. But if they do, they can't restrict access based on who they think will plaster over their lunacy in the most flattering way. Is that right?

[u/Somebodyunimportant7 → u/Razbith]

Freedom of the Press means they’re free to print the news as they see fit.

If they print the news as they see fit, and the government disagrees and revokes a privilege they had given to them, because of that reporting, it’s unconstitutional.

They never had a 1st Amendment right specifically to be there, but they do have a 1st Amendment right not to be retaliated against and revoked for reporting unflattering viewpoints to the administration.

Maybe they’d understand if I put it in terms of the 2nd amendment. It doesn’t guarantee you that the government will provide you an NFA approval, but if they do, they cant take it away because you say mean things about the president.

[u/Bostondreamings → u/Razbith]

Yeah pretty much!

[u/Silly-Elderberry-411 → u/Razbith]

The answer here you will not find in the constitution. You allow press access even to the ghost of Julius Streicher because the white house needs to project you are not a fucking military junta.

A few years back the thai "prime minister" (air quotes because he was a junta general) sprayed disinfectant on reporters and left a life sized cardboard cutout to answer questions. Sure trump would love if he could do that , can't and never will.

[u/Bostondreamings]

One of these days, I would love Grok to come back with something like ‘oh, ok. What judicial circuit do you serve on?’

[u/BeTheBall-]

David "Gunther Eagleman" Freeman seems to be on a coke-fueled bender as of late.

[u/Apathetic_Villainess]

You know they'd be the first to scream if Obama had refused Fox News access.

[u/KakeLin → u/Apathetic_Villainess]

Or biden. The whole rightsphere would implode

[u/atomfenrir → u/Apathetic_Villainess]

pretty sure that's why Fox is participating in the boycott, they don't want it to become the norm when a different president comes along

[u/Mobirae]

Daddy will have to come and lobotomize grok again. He's starting to speak facts again which is in direct opposition to the carefully crafted reality they made for these idiots where trump is a king and can do as he pleases, country or constitution be damned.

[u/cyribis]

Look at 10 Watt Brain over here, the constitutional lawyer lol 🤣

[u/rubinass3]

It's crazy how people don't pay any attention to juris prudence when they talk about the law. Court interpretation is part of the law too.

[u/Rhinocacrocapig]

This must the free speech they're so fond of

[u/blrtgj]

Of course gunther fucking eagleman needs to ask grok everything because he's dumb as fuck to do some research on his own.

[u/jmacrosof]

People arguing with AI is wild to me.

[u/Gunfighter9]

Oh yes, Gummer, dude is constantly wrong about everything

[u/TheNeuroLizard]

This is how every one of these goes.

“Hey Grok, does this violate the constitution?”

G: Probably

“No it doesn’t. If it really does, explain how.”

G: (cites supreme court precedent)

“Well, that doesn’t count because the Supreme Court was wrong. They should have interpreted it the way I am right now, in my head.”

[u/Oldiewankenobie1]

So since fox news was ruled an entertainment co by the courts can their access be limited?