Associated Press Barred from Oval Office for Not Using 'Gulf of America'
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
[1] https://www.npr.org/2023/02/08/1155491204/ex-twitter-officia...
These are all very right wing media outlets who in the best case will not press for the hard questions and in the worst case will out right lie for Trump.
Or, rather, I can imagine how Bezos sleeps at night, but I don't know how I would.
And there have been mass protests like 50501, but the media actively chooses not to report it, unsurprisingly.
Edit: feel free to downvote, but if you think you have a point other than hurt feelings do share
Calling it "Gulf of America" does not equate it to "Gulf of the United States of America" which is what Trump probably wants, but he is too stupid to realize the difference. He just deprived the Gulf of its association with Mexico without truly associating with the US.
Why doesn't he go all the way and call for New Mexico to be renamed to New America though? I wouldn't put it past him.
Do some white people think these petty attitudes will restore the former industrial glory of the US?
Is he miffed at the Gulf referring to a country of mostly Latinos/Hispanics rather than White people?
Is this guy just racist or petty/both? The citizens of the US should be ashamed of themselves for voting him in as President, though truth be said their political system doesn't give them much of choice.
In any case what choice is there between an GOP apple and Democrat pear if they are both rotten?
Vespucci spoke of the "New World" (at the time, 1504, only South America), the first one to say "that's really not India" - so Martin Waldseemueller called the continent "America" (1507).
Edgar Allan Poe had some irritation about the matter:
> It is a thousand pities that the puny witticisms of a few professional objectors should have the power to prevent, even for a year, the adoption of a name for our country. At present we have, clearly, none. There should be no hesitation about “Appalachia”. In the first place, it is distinctive. “America” is not, and can never be made so. We may legislate as much as we please, and assume for our country whatever name we think right — but to use it will be no name, to any purpose for which a name is needed, unless we can take it away from the regions which employ it at present. South America is “America”, and will insist upon remaining so
> Gulf of Mexico (Gulf of America)
i.e., it shows both the names.
I don't think the AP should be bared for not using the new name, however I also don't think it is a freedom of speech issue, if so they would sue.
What is happening is they are not being given a spot during briefings.
From my understanding, the definition of "The Press" is quite large and allows many entities, since it is impossible for all of them to be physically present there has to be a mechanism for deciding who is present and not.
And, you are missing the continent-size point: what would be the discriminator to keep some in and some out?
> a big deal about it
It is a very big deal. Some party introduces a local convention while he rest of the world uses another one. With very dire consequences in terms of relation (it's divisive internally and externally, and creates embarrassments).
Under this bar, everything Twitter and Facebook have done, and any meddling the government may have done in those ecosystems, isn't a Free Speech Issue. Considering the very administration now taking this action called being banned from Twitter a violation of their free speech these look like some pretty mobile goalposts.
> From my understanding, the definition of "The Press" is quite large and allows many entities, since it is impossible for all of them to be physically present there has to be a mechanism for deciding who is present and not.
100% true! But surely you can see how "does the government like your speech?" being part of that mechanism is clearly a Free Speech issue, even if you assume it is legal? Remember, this is the Government. It's not like it's Trump disinviting them from his house because they hurt his feelings.
That was the majority position of the entire liberal establishment for the last decade. See: https://xkcd.com/1357/ See also: "Freeze Peach" : https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/375bva/whats_...
While my reply was rather curt in the beginning, I don't think this is a first amendment violation as it they have done nothing to restrict AP's access to information or publishing information, only from being in the room with the President.
This sort of access control has been ongoing since at least the Obama administration: https://www.rcfp.org/white-house-attempted-shut-out-fox-news... and under Biden: https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/08/04/white-house-purges-44...
The liberal establishment position has been much more fluid with the concept of free speech. There has been plenty of outrage over things like deadnaming, perceived racism, etc.
> they have done nothing to restrict AP's access to information or publishing information, only from being in the room with the President
Seems related
I do hope that you would consider the ACLU as liberal establishment.
>But over the past ten years, Donald Trump and other right-wing provocateurs have co-opted free-speech values to advance an agenda often at odds with liberalism and social justice (see Elon Musk’s X), while Democrats, progressives, and, arguably, the ACLU have retreated from the ideal that free speech needs to be protected regardless of the viewpoint being expressed. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/the-free-speech-war-...
And in case you don't like that source, here is the reference from the NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html
And a choice quote: >Traditionally, the A.C.L.U.’s state affiliates monitor and argue free speech cases, but in recent years some shied from such fights.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Uni... Check out the support and opposition section.
I don't think this term is meaningful. It begs the question to even claim that there _is_ a liberal establishment on the topic of free speech.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_(legal)#Nonpublic_forums
Seems like this will just entice political debate vs a tech discussion
2) This resource is quite relevant to people who operate on the real world - which we have to know adequately to operate in
The DOGE kid is working in government, doing (controversial)things that are affected a substantial portion of the U.S. population.
Should we follow those who we don't like through their lives and report on who has hired them and into what positions? Perhaps we should make them wear a large red A?