New York Times Sues Hegseth Over New Pentagon Press Rules
The people who ignored Joe Biden all of a sudden want to do their job.
The New York Times filed a lawsuit against the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Chief Pentagon Spokesman Sean Parnell for allegedly violating the First and Fifth Amendments with their press restrictions.
“If allowed to stand, that policy will upend the longstanding and ‘healthy adversarial tension between the government, which may seek to keep its secrets’ and ‘the press, which may endeavor to” report them, Alexander Bickel, The Morality of Consent at 79 (1977), and will deprive the public of vital information about the United States military and its leadership,” claims the publication.
The Pentagon requires the media “to sign a 21-page form that sets restrictions on journalistic activities, including requests for story tips and inquiries to Pentagon sources.”
Not agreeing to the standards could lead to a reporter losing their Pentagon Facility Alternate Credentials (PFACs).
“Department officials with unbridled discretion to immediately suspend and ultimately revoke a reporter’s PFAC for engaging in lawful newsgathering, both on and off Pentagon grounds, or for reporting any information Department officials have not approved is neither reasonable nor viewpoint-neutral,” according to the lawsuit. “It is exactly the type of speech- and press-restrictive scheme that the Supreme Court and D.C. Circuit have recognized violates the First Amendment.”
The New York Times argues that the policy violates the First Amendment because it prevents journalists from doing their job: “ask questions of government employees and gather information to report stories that take the public beyond official pronouncements.”
Look, I’m a free speech purist. No restrictions.
I’m also not stupid.
These are the same people who never asked questions about President Joe Biden.
These are the same people who didn’t question anything that came from the Biden administration.
These are the same people who ate up anything coming from the administration and don’t you dare question anything!
Now they want to do their job?
We all know that they’re out to get President Donald Trump and his administration.
They’re not aggressive with Trump and the administration because they want to do their jobs.
These reporters are aggressive because they want to destroy the administration.
I mean, it’s even to the point that someone like me who has never voted for Trump (or Obama, Clinton, Biden, or Harris…I vote libertarian) hardly ever believes anything coming from the legacy media concerning Trump.
Should the press be aggressive with the government? Yes…no matter what party holds the office or Congressional majority.
The fact is that they pick and choose and that is why people, including a free speech purist like me, don’t care what they have to say.
And it’s a shame because there are some decent reporters out there who perform their job well whether a Democrat or Republican holds the office.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
America has a speech impediment known as a lisp. The voice of America is being misinterpreted by the media lips that lisp in response while silencing ours.
When did the NYT stop being the propaganda arm of the Democrat party?
didn’t happen, won’t happen
Hegseth should designate the NYT as a terrorist organization and take preemptive action.
It’s not like it would be something new to the federal government.
Davod Codrea reminds us of Bill Clinton’s Rules of Engagement.
When the left wing media believe they are in charge of the country, they make ludicrous charges like this one from the NYT. Hegseth is right to shut them down to the extent he can. Why not make the form 50 pages long?
Why have a form at all. Hegseth should just revoke the PFAC’s of any news organization he no longer wants to have access to the Pentagon and leave it at that. What are they going to do, sue him for access to the Pentagon? Oh wait. they’ve already done that so what does Hegseth have to lose at this point. Nothing as far as I can tell. Darned if you do, darned if you don’t. Revoke the PFACs and tell them they’ll have to contact their “anonymous sources” somewhere else.
Trump tried that in his first term and some judge said that he couldn’t,..and the simpy Trump obeyed like a good little boy
That’s not quite what happened. The judge said it couldn’t be done the way the White House had done it, but he practically drew them a road map for how it could be done. But they lost interest and never followed through.
The entire premise of this lawsuit is a smoke screen.
There is no right under the constitution to have press credentials or to wander around a supposedly secure facility (the Pentagon) looking for someone willing to leak classified information.
The constitution does not make members of the press special nor does it give them rights no one else has to special access.
I was assigned to the Pentagon, and I NEVER had the ability to roam the halls and talk to anyone about anything I wanted.
We all had our own worlds in which we worked, everyone understood “Need to Know” and knew not to share anything with anyone.
We knew that any request for information was directed to the DINFOS warriors in Public Affairs.
Anyone in the Pentagon who shares information with the press should be incarcerated.
Of course as a military member you were restricted. OPSEC ruls the day, but that won’t keep a civilian from digging for information and it won’t keep them from meeting someone in a bar somewhere. There are those who think they can do or say anything they please simply because they want to.
.
Thus my comment that if they share information without a need to know, they should be incarcerated.
After the 10th person subject to life imprisonment, the rest will get the clue. Fill the jails and empty the Pentagon.
Exactly. The real basis for the dispute is the ‘press’ aka legacy media outlets/reporters who previously were feted and granted privileges are losing the level of access and ass kissing they came to believe was theirs by right.
All of us enjoy exactly the same 1A rights. Just because some goon is employed by a corporate media entity doesn’t increase their rights. If you or I decided to show up at the Pentagon and walk around the corridors, barge into offices, demand access to specific people or documents we’d get locked up. The establishment hates to be reminded they are not special and will pitch an unholy tantrum every time.
NYT would force reporters into a battlezone, and whine like the little bitches they are when they get riddled with holes….hey!
Perhaps that is how media gets away with all the bullshit we continually see…their stories are so filled with holes every bullet flies through without hitting anything.
One doesn’t need building access to call a Pentagon official on the phone or meet him in a restaurant. However, building access makes it easier to get basic contact information.
Building access allows them to wander around lo0king for and seeing things they shouldn’t have access to. They should be restricted to a set of rooms and anywhere else requires an escort.
They shouldn’t be permitted in the Pentagon, period. They can sit in an office building in Rosslyn, and the Public Affairs Officer can meet them on the fourth Tuesday of any month that falls after the blue moon when Ophiuchus can be seen in the southwestern sky at dawn.
This is 100% true. There is no valid 1A argument. There is a valid 5A argument, but it’s easily got around.
I mean, it’s even to the point that someone like me who has never voted for Trump (or Obama, Clinton, Biden, or Harris…I vote libertarian)
Wait– you voted for Chase?
Are you kidding?
The LP has offered up garbage lo these many years. Jeez, in 2016 their veep candidate was openly endorsing Hillary.
The only libertarians in congress are Kentucky Republicans.
The LP, despite the Mises caucus, has shifted too far left–the only libertarians who can get elected are doing so as Republicans. Ask Ron Paul.
Correct. I consider myself of libertarian leanings, but I only vote for Republicans ever since I was capable of understanding the Democrats weren’t benefiting the US.
My wife and I were once having dinner at an Orlando hotel which was hosting an LP conference. While walking around the hotel after dinner, we encountered a conference attendee who was actually wearing a tinfoil hat.
He was from their conservative wing.
A HREF=”http://orizzontipolitici.it/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/VPF4jCg-scaled.jpg”>A perennial Libertarian presidential candidate wears an upside-down boot there.
My kingdom for an edit button.
He was from their conservative wing.
A perennial Libertarian presidential candidate wears an upside-down boot there.
And she brags about it… sad
Libertarians have become liberal democrats in drag.
If the “Pentagon Facility Alternate Credentials” requirement does not violate the first amendment, then the terms and conditions that maintain do not as well.
There are NO Decent Reporters. Only propagandists. I don’t care what side of the political spectrum they claim.
Every one has an angle, every one has an axe to grind, every one has chosen a side.
To claim that anyone is a purist is a fantasy.
If anyone who consumes “news” believes everything they read, they are naive beyond belief.
A special case of Romans 3:10 “There is none righteous. No, not one”.
So they’re telling us they are and will continue to be security risks but they’d better not be restricted or they’ll sue? The obvious reason for restrictions is because they’re either too arrogant or too stupid to keep their mouths shut.
.
They want building access so they can get contact info (like business cards and such) to or from pentagon workers who might want to tell them something. I’m sure the discussions of restricted info don’t happen much in the building. No, it happens when they meet in a bar across the street after work. But if you are a reporter or pentagon official, you need to know who to meet.
The NYT certainly likes to burn money on lawfare. There might be aspects of the agreement which violate the first amendment,. I don’t know. However they aren’t entitled to wander anywhere in a secure facility they want to and speak to anyone they want at the drop of a hat. That’s not the way it works and it doesn’t impede them from doing their job,
“Their job” seems to be something other than what you think it should be.
They have the money to burn, and they have local federal judges in their corner.
Let the federal judges enforce their diktats. But with what army?
At some point, We The People must render the judiciary null and void, permanently.
There is no right to due process here. The Pentagon sets the rules, and they can change them. Pretty sure they don’t even have to have a comment period, because it’s the military.
And there’s a standard exception to First Amendment access for classified, CUI, and OPSEC information.
I am retired now but early in my work life after I got out of college I worked in some very high tech and high security areas. There were ones that were military that you were under 100% surveillance and under armed control that you could be shot if you were in the wrong area or room.
I see no issues with the rules that have been put in place by the Trump Admin. As for being sued for access anyone can sue, and likely the corrupt Judges in the US will allow it, but appeals will end at the Supreme Court for it to be in Trump’s favor.
Allowing the NYT, the WaPo, MSNBC, etc any kind of media access is like giving ISIS access to sensitive material. At some point we have to recognize the American media is largely made up of enemy combatants and bloodthirsty terrorists.
Want to make them back down? Point out that the NYT (and other outlets) are charging for their coverage. I. E. – It’s not a “free” press…
That is a stupid argument. They’re wrong, but that’s not the reason.
Back in the first Trump administration they once canceled Jim Acosta’s press card, and he sued to get it back, and won. I read the decision at the time, and while I no longer remember all the details, it was decided on 5A grounds, not 1A.
I also remember, and I posted here on LI at the time, that the judge practically drew the White House a road map for how they could take his card properly. I was expecting them to follow his directions immediately and within a few weeks he’d have been out, but instead they seemed to have lost interest. It was as though if they couldn’t have him out immediately they would just let him back in and go chasing after the next shiny object.