The AP's case is strong and strategic.
Keep in mind, the case law regarding the press' right to access information is sparse and, frankly, not especially press-friendly.
There's a clear right to publication but not so much to the act of newsgathering. 🧵
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_hL_rh67_03oTVkrosOSp-2ZFGzPJYdE/view?usp=sharing
Keep in mind, the case law regarding the press' right to access information is sparse and, frankly, not especially press-friendly.
There's a clear right to publication but not so much to the act of newsgathering. 🧵
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_hL_rh67_03oTVkrosOSp-2ZFGzPJYdE/view?usp=sharing
Comments
The basic rule is that the press isn't entitled to info unavailable to the public.
The same could be said for AP's case, especially given AP's century-long access to the WH press pool.
Instead, the AP's central claim is that the WH impersmissably retaliated against the AP based on the AP's engagement in protected conduct. And here, the conduct at issue is the AP's editorial decison making.
In fact, WH didn't even revoke the AP's press pass (as they did w/Jim Acosta).
We can expect to see the same arguments in their reply.
This will be crucial for defending press freedom as the White House continues its efforts to censor journalism.
It's so much more than what we call the Gulf.