The Pentagon’s new restrictions on reporters are outrageous and unconstitutional.
Pentagon Gears Up for a Fight
The Pentagon said it would forbid reporters from gathering any information that had not been authorized for release, and would revoke press passes from any journalists who did not obey.
The New York Times reports Read the Pentagon’s New Restrictions on Reporters
That’s a free link to the 17-page document.
First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Columbia Journalism Review (CJR) comments The Pentagon Press Gears Up for a Fight
Pentagon reporters are scrambling to come up with a response to an unprecedented policy restricting how they cover the military, as a deadline to sign a pledge not to report on unauthorized information looms.
The policy, issued by the Department of Defense in a seventeen-page memo on September 18, demands that journalists covering the Pentagon sign a document promising to report only on material “approved for public release by an appropriate authorizing official, even if it is unclassified.” Failure to do so by September 30 would result in the loss of their “hard pass,” the coveted press credential that permits certain reporters regular, unescorted access to the building. Pentagon officials recently told reporters they could request an additional five days to “consult with legal counsel” before the policy would be enforced.
One editor of a military-oriented publication told CJR that they had “heard of discussions taking place” about a legal challenge, and noted that their staff was not likely to comply with the new policy if it goes fully into effect. “Securing access to the Pentagon, to the building, is not worth giving up the ability to write more than press releases and official statements,” the editor said. “I think that we’re all kind of expecting to just get kicked out of the building,” said another member of the Pentagon press corps. “None of us are signing this pledge.”
The restrictive policy is not the first time Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, a former television commentator, has wrestled with the press. In January, Hegseth ordered a reshuffling of the long-standing arrangements of the Pentagon press offices, evicting the Times, NPR, and Politico from their dedicated workspaces and replacing them with Breitbart News and the One America News Network. He’s also struggled to contain leaks and critical reports about his leadership, including his own private Signal chats—inadvertently shared with the editor of The Atlantic.
Reporters who cover the Pentagon describe an atmosphere of tension and anxiety throughout the building, with normally talkative sources afraid to speak. “The fear is palpable,” said Thomas Brennan, the founder and executive director of the military-focused site The War Horse. “I would say the resistance to talk is stronger than it’s ever been before, at least in my thirteen years. There’s a real fear of retaliation.” The member of the Pentagon press corps agreed: “I don’t really expect to have good conversations on the phone anymore, especially with people who are in the building, because there’s a fear that people could be listening. There’s definitely a culture of fear.”
Seth Stern, the director of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, says the Pentagon’s new policy looks like a classic case of unconstitutional prior restraint, and should therefore be vulnerable to legal challenge. “Usually, prior restraints are aimed at a particular document,” he said. “So this is broader than you would typically see.” The policy also fundamentally warps the role of journalism in covering government agencies, Stern added. “It’s not the journalists’ burden to keep the government’s secrets for it,” he said. “That is the opposite of the press’s job, which is to tell the public what the government doesn’t want the public told. The government cannot condition a benefit on forfeiture of First Amendment rights.”
Hegseth Tries Turning Back 94 Years of Press Freedom
Bloomberg comments Hegseth Tries Turning Back 94 Years of Press Freedom
In a 17-page memo that journalists will now be required to undertake only to publish material that has been “approved for public release by an appropriate authorizing official, even if it is unclassified.” If they don’t sign this undertaking, they lose their access to the building and all military facilities, and with it their ability to cover the defense policy of the world’s largest military power.
“National security” doesn’t arise as an issue; of course the military has an interest in keeping plans for its next operation secret but such information is classified, and this policy now seeks to control even unclassified information.
To justify the measure, Pete Hegseth, the defense secretary, channeled this distrust: “The ‘press’ does not run the Pentagon — the people do.”
In the Pentagon Papers case, the New York Times and Washington Post won the right to publish a critical analysis of the war in Vietnam that the defense establishment had decided not to publish.
It’s not a question of whether the people or the press controls the department, as Hegseth frames it, but rather whether the press should be able to monitor it on behalf of the people.
Under the current interpretation of the First Amendment, American journalists have charted the disasters in Vietnam, the horrible mistakes in Iraq and the abuses in Abu Ghraib jail in 2003, and Joe Biden’s disastrous retreat from Afghanistan in 2021. It would have been difficult if not impossible for them to do these things had Hegseth’s rules been in force.
Justice Hugo Black on the Pentagon Papers
The last opinion written by Justice Hugo Black before his death was on the Pentagon Papers.
Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell.
Pentagon Papers – New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)
Please consider JUSTIA US Supreme Court review of New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971) Hugo Black
In seeking injunctions against these newspapers, and in its presentation to the Court, the Executive Branch seems to have forgotten the essential purpose and history of the First Amendment. When the Constitution was adopted, many people strongly opposed it because the document contained no Bill of Rights to safeguard certain basic freedoms. They especially feared that the new powers granted to a central government might be interpreted to permit the government to curtail freedom of religion, press, assembly, and speech.
In the First Amendment, the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors.
The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell. In my view, far from deserving condemnation for their courageous reporting, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other newspapers should be commended for serving the purpose that the Founding Fathers saw so clearly. In revealing the workings of government that led to the Vietnam war, the newspapers nobly did precisely that which the Founders hoped and trusted they would do.
Far Beyond the Pentagon
Unfortunately, these actions go far beyond the Pentagon. Trump is suing political opponents just because he does not like what they say.
As of October 2025, Donald Trump is engaged in several lawsuits against media organizations, including a new $15 billion defamation suit against The New York Times.
YouTube agreed to pay $24 million to settle Trump lawsuit. A notice of settlement details that $22 million will go toward building a new White House ballroom.
In July, Paramount Global settled with him for $16 million after he took issue with a “60 Minutes” interview with Kamala Harris that aired on CBS.
Trump is also suing The Wall Street Journal over its reporting about his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein.
On September 19, NBC reported Judge tosses Trump’s $15B New York Times lawsuit, calling it ‘improper’ and ‘invective’
Undoubtedly that is the correct decision.
Tactics Working
It costs a lot of money to defend these lawsuits. If the amounts are small enough, it’s easier to settle. And many companies did.
Thus, Trump’s tactics are working precisely because he doesn’t give a damn about the Constitution. That’s the point of it all.
He wants to impose Gestapo-like fear in anyone who disagrees with him and has largely succeeded.
The next Democrat president may do the same. By then, it will be too late for Republicans to howl.
Silence is Deafening
The hypocrites in charge of this government would have been outraged had the Biden or Obama administration pulled these same stunts.
Imagine the reaction of Fox News if it was told that it could only report the official view of the Pentagon or its reporters would be banned.
Instead of mass outrage, we have silence. Well, strike that. We have people defending Trump making a racist ass out of himself.
Idiots Have Free Speech Too
A Wall Street Journal Op-Ed expresses my views perfectly: Idiots Have Free Speech Too
I’d rather be subjected to Jimmy Kimmel than protected from him by government.
It was Napoleon who likely said, “Never interrupt your opponent while he is making a mistake.” Instead—free speech be damned—Mr. Carr threatened to revoke ABC broadcasting licenses, and then President Trump piled on to take credit and also hassle NBC. An unnecessary mic drop for sure.
Is speech free anymore? The First Amendment is clear against laws “abridging the freedom of speech.” Sadly, government’s heavy hand has been around too long. Google recently admitted that the Biden administration pressured the company to censor thousands of YouTube users for political speech. Disgraceful.
Mark Zuckerberg told Joe Rogan that Biden folks would “scream” and “curse” at Meta employees (words you can’t say on TV?) to get them to take down ill-defined “misinformation.” ABC, Google and Meta have the right to limit speech on their own networks, but government absolutely can’t tell private companies to “abridge” speech. That’s an abuse of power.
Others want muzzles. In 2019 Sen. Kamala Harris tweeted: “Look let’s be honest, @realDonaldTrump’s Twitter account should be suspended.” On Jan. 8, 2021, Donald Trump was “permanently” suspended from Twitter—following bans from Facebook and Instagram.
Remember when the Obama administration’s Internal Revenue Service targeted conservative nonprofits over their tax-exempt status—with the intent to limit speech it didn’t like? I do. The IRS later provided a “sincere apology.” Gee, thanks.
Vice President JD Vance recently said of those celebrating the assassination of Charlie Kirk, whose open-debate format was a pure form of free speech, “Call them out, and hell, call their employer”—like a sixth-grade hall monitor.
This has to stop. I believe in free-speech absolutism. Period. Mic drop.
Even Hillary Clinton agrees, sort of. On Sept. 18, she told CNN, “You defend free speech in terrible times. You defend free speech that is used against holding people in power accountable through satire, humor, barbed attacks. You defend it when it is offensive.” You go girl! Except in 2016 she urged Congress to propose a constitutional amendment to nullify Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), a free-speech and campaign-finance decision that protected a movie critical of her.
There are those who believe calling Republicans “fascist” and Mr. Trump “Hitler”—about as vile an insult as there is—set the stage for today’s political violence. But free speech means you can say what you want (without inciting immediate violence). But that doesn’t stop others from labeling you small-minded or (can I say this?) cretinous.
We all have a constitutional right to free speech, but society also has moral codes against humiliating and degrading others.
Free speech is for everyone, although civility seems to be only for the civil. Say what you want about birthing people, carbon spewing, the need for racism to fight racism or even comparing the president to someone who ran extermination camps. That’s your right. But you’ll lose my respect and trust for a long time. And don’t be surprised if I think you’re a blathering chucklehead. Like Jimmy Kimmel.
What an excellent op-ed by Andy Kessler.
So, yeah, Trump has a “right” to make an ass of himself in extremes no other president has used.
I also like Kessler’s article because he point out hypocrisy by the Democrats as well.
Both parties want to restrict what the other side says, but Trump has started more lawsuits and inane regulation to do so.
Flag Burning
If idiots want to burn the flag, I say go ahead. Show everyone you are an idiot.
And Trump?
Trump makes an ass out of himself: Donald Trump Issues Ultimatum to American Flag Burners
President Donald Trump, writing on Truth Social, informed “ICE, Border Patrol, Law Enforcement, and all U.S. Military” that “from this point forward, anybody burning the American Flag will be subject to one year in prison” in accordance with a previous executive order.
That is a clearly unconstitutional executive order. But Trump does not give a damn about the constitution.
Free Speech Irony of the Day
Yesterday I wrote Trump Tries to Win Over Hispanic Voters with Targeted Video
I criticized Trump’s racist video on X portraying House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries with a sombrero, a mustache and mariachi music playing in the background.
Click above to play the video.
A reader replied to my post “Mish. What happened to free speech??? Shame on you!”
The irony is staggering. I responded:
What happened to the ability to think?
When did I say Trump had no right to racist speech?I 100% endorse Trump’s right to make racist comments.
But racist comments and videos are still racist, and my right to free speech gets to point that out.
Now since you are lecturing me on free speech, I just happen to have a post coming up on that.
The irony of your comment with what Trump is doing to free speech is staggering.
To repeat, I endorse Trump’s right to say what he wants no matter how big an ass he makes of himself in the process. But suddenly, this is a one-way street.
The Trump administration is working hard to kill freedom of speech involving any criticism of Trump.
And a reader lectures me on freedom of speech. What a hoot.
Really……… Trumps the problem? Your kidding right? You Tube/ Meta / Twitter
Blocking anti Vax Anti Conservative content, 2020 thru 2024 is a Oopsie ?
This is happening bc Hegseth and his band of idiots leaked classified intelligence. End of story. They are all morons leading the free world. I doubt the lot of them can spell amendment much less know anything about them….I just hope we don’t blow the world to smithereens in the next 3 years….bc they are so stupid that it beggars the imagination….
CJR: “In January, Hegseth ordered a reshuffling of the long-standing arrangements of the Pentagon press offices, evicting the Times, NPR, and Politico from their dedicated workspaces and replacing them with Breitbart News and the One America News Network.”
Those slots are not an entitlement. There are numerous media outlets. As i recall, some slots were to be on a rotating yearly basis, so other media were to have an opportunity to participate in the limited available Pentagon media office space.
The MSM is incredibly biased. As Mika said on MSNBC, it was their job to tell us what to think. In other words, propagandize to the public. I constantly hear the false narrative from KTLA News, that the Ukraine war was unprovoked. Propaganda. Media propaganda manipulates the public into supporting U.S. wars, including “Iraqi Freedom.”
Is the real issue the First Amendment or a corrupt mainstream media which has an ulterior agenda?
more like is in process of replacing the old leadership that does the same thing .
nothing new
If its unconstitutional but they do it anyway then what good is it?
Perhaps to stifle any criticism of a planned all-out war against the rest of the world? How crazy is that? Paid by US neocons?
https://warontherocks.com/2025/10/sequencing-over-simultaneity-how-to-avert-a-two-front-war
This article makes some good points about free speech and its First Amendment protection that I completely agree with. I also believe the First Amendment creates no obligation to listen; if you do not what is being said, turn a deaf ear.
This might actually improve press coverage, by reducing the conflicts of interest. Journalism works best when they can report the facts without pressure. There will always be pressure, but “pressure to retain inside access” can be reduced.
The press do not belong on planes, ships or tanks going into battle; that puts lives at risk.
The press do not belong inside the Pentagon or other military installations. The military should be focused on doing their jobs, not dueling via leaks to journalists.
The press can and should report from outside just as they historically have, and they can and should cover everything – and not just the government PR.
So… this smells like a nothingburger, am I wrong?
In WW2 the civilian press went in with battalion H&S Cos, and USMC correspondents went in with rifle companies at the tip of the spear. There is a movie, bright and early on Feb 19,1945, of a rifle platoon jumping off to charge across the narrow isthmus of Iwo Jima. Ditto for the American Civil War.
Yes… but (a) that was a real war, not the current situation, and (b) their reports were heavily censored.
They were government propaganda agents, not genuine reporters.
In peacetime, I’d rather have genuine honest reporting.
No, they were genuine civilian reporters. MacArthur hated it, and he imposed censorship during the Korean War, with some very negative outcomes.
This is a feature and not a bug. The pot is getting warmer and we are all frogs. While the D’s and the R’s in charge may hate each other viscerally, that doesn’t mean they don’t share common goals. And that is to crush all us plebeians and take everything for themselves
The MIC metastasized some decades ago. We need more transparency, not less.
Here’s some ICE agents just casually brutalizing reporters:
https://x.com/JayinKyiv/status/1974479248162214393
Just wait til their BBB budget boost goes into effect.
1) “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
A contested quote
Gold hits $3,970 and trades above $3,950!
Up > $1,200 since inauguration day. If that is not an indictment of Trumps disaster #2 in the making, I have no idea what could be.
Our debt goes up $1 trillion every 150 days kiddies and it will only get worse with the bloated orange traffic cone in office.
Got mining stocks?
Has France asked for the Statue of Liberty back yet?
They should…
… Americans “don’t want a bunch of Pravda newspapers only touting the government’s official position,” asserted Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), a former Air Force brigadier general who is not seeking re-election to Congress in 2026. “A free press makes our country better. But this sounds like amateur hour. … This is so dumb I have a hard time believing it’s true.” …
As they should. We should not have elected Trump. He should also take control of the election because the American people will be ok with it.
More than just that. The terrible Kirk incident pushes even supposed constitutional conservatives into wanting a “privatized” version of the Congressionally rejected Total Information Awareness program.
Ask Grok: “Flock + Palantir + Starlink + AI. Connect the dystopian dots.” without the quotes. Note that those all involve Trump’s tech-bros.
Everyone should read that result, heck you should just dump it here, that’s just gross
“Winston Smith” from Ritholtz’s Big Picture?
I know, it’s highly**9 unlikely… 😉
Agreed, thankful for freedom of the press. The Chicago SunTimes and Chicago Tribune don’t write about any of this –
https://cwbchicago.com/
— Personally I wouldn’t expect any journalists allowed in the Pentagon or the CIA except for a designated Press area. Especially in the AI era.
— On “racism” etc.: The entire American continent doesn’t even have its own language (they speak English, Portuguese, Spanish, French), thus no native culture anymore. Just countries containing a mix of this and that with almost zero historical depth, other than the global significance of the US as an important State.
— Thus, characterizations such as “racist” etc. sound in my ears like a scream of a chimpanzee at a zoo, especially when it’s based on things that don’t exist or are largely artificial or insignificant (Mexican sombrero?). They also show finger-pointing and attitudes designed to shut someone up (maybe to shut fragile Catholics up, because they have no effect on anyone else).
— Ironically, a few days after Mish called a reader “bigot” for just pointing out substandard illegal immigrant truck drivers, one of them from India killed 3 people on the highway due to complete lack of training. And then more incidents started coming out. And then we had Iryna, which also caused other cases to come out in the light.
When you say “racist” in these cases, I say “selective”. Being selective in America will save your life.
— As far as so many people celebrating deaths and executions, it’s no surprise to me, since the first solid impression of East Coast people when I lived in Philadelphia was “Salem witch trials” and “pichforks”. I was amazed back then that a subject I had not revisited for decades had matched into my mind the local attitudes. The celebrations of Kirk’s execution are certainly a result of the main underlying culture of the areas and the upbringing of those individuals. For the first time I started thinking that Oscar Wilde was right.
Just look at the abhorrent behavior at the rider cup in NY . Absolutely disgusting and NYC has a history of this name calling insults ect. embarrasing . It was more than a few but the fact the people in and around these clowns didn’t call them out tells you all you need to know . These heavy Dem areas are the most disgusting places in the nation DC ,Portland , Chicago ,NYC , Memphis, NO, Atlanta . They all have one common thing and everyone knows it . They protest anyone trying to bring law in order to these places they love their crime and victimhood.
the Democrat party is a gang much like the CCP–90% of the Administrative State in DC are democrat party members–America suffered under their border policy-democrat cities are staffed by Great Society off spring born for welfare and a Democrat voter base nothing more.
“They protest anyone trying to bring law in order to these places they love their crime and victimhood.”
Boom! And Trump has to fight these insane lower courts to protect government buildings, because these liberal states won’t do their job in more ways than just this.
Poor baby… is daddy getting called on his bullshit? Awwww
Nope! Nice try, Pedo.
<<abhorrent behavior at the rider cup in NY>> I have no idea, I don’t follow such news, I didn’t even know Kirk before he was shot. The news gave me an opportunity to watch some of his clips. And I said “they shot that guy???”.
I think a speaker from the Taliban (with his own security detail, and a stoning expert from Iran as guest speaker) is probably what colleges deserve. Because nobody will dare protest against him. Islam will teach them about socialism and genders; it’ll teach ’em good!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMvjwgLE45Y
Nice work Lefteris. But you forgot to mention the ridiculous hypocrisy of complaining about trump suing newspapers (and winning, no less) when they lie and fabricate news…
If you are trying to prove you do not understand the issue at all, congrats, you just did.
You either believe in the Constitution or you don’t.
And you are not the arbiter of alleged lies.
Speaking of which, Trump and Biden are both huge liars. And the press is biased.
Fox News is no better than the New York Times.
free speech=
why have an issue over it to begin with?
“Vice President JD Vance recently said of those celebrating the assassination of Charlie Kirk, whose open-debate format was a pure form of free speech, “Call them out, and hell, call their employer”—like a sixth-grade hall monitor.”
What a pile of BS. If AOC were assassinated in a similar manner & there were conservatives who celebrated it, I would fully expect them to lose their jobs.
There are ~ 5 things you can’t say and expect your 1A protections. Celebrating someone’s assassination is pretty damn close to inciting violence. The last thing this country needs is for a bunch of people to start being executed for what they believe in.
This person wins the idiot of the year award. Was Kirk a free speech absolutist? Yes, but I’m quite sure he didn’t want to be executed & then have people cheering on his death.
So your reasoning is, it’s ok to fire people over speech, because you think the democrats would fire them over speech.
It’s not ok to fire anybody over speech, period.
How did you get so goddam dumb?
Correct, it’s not “ok” to fire people over speech. They fired them for their public image, and concerns of other employees. You know that companies are very sensitive to these things. Schools too.
A few years ago they were firing others for pronouns… publicly celebrating murder is a bit worse than wrong pronouns.
Hey, Pedo, yes it’s okay to fire people when they cheer someone being executed for their thoughts & words.
How hard is that for you to understand?
BTW, it’s easy to post stuff & not cuss, when you have a real point to make.
@ BenW
In another recent thread, you posted a comment defending some other prima fscie unconstitutional action by this admin because “biden would’ve done it”. Same here?
My point here is about this guy who is a Free Speech Absolutist. I believe with the pervasiveness of social media & looming AI deep fakes, our concept of free speech is going to have to evolve. Be that as it may, I’m pointing out that celebrating someone’s execution for what he said & believed is about as close to hate speech as you can get until you clearly step over the line. None of these individuals who lost their jobs were prosecuted. Justice was severed by society & not the government.
As for the many examples of Trump’s administration stepping over the line, I’m kind of split. On one hand, I fine with Trump suing all of these idiot corporations who are CLEARLY one-sided, biased & in many cases are trying to defame him.
As for the Hegseth / Pentagon, I believe the goal here is control leaks which is a worthwhile goal. People can still report on what they want, as far as I can tell, they’re just going to have to work harder to do so. The Pentagon does deal in national security, so there needs to be guard rails. It’s not like Hegseth has done something to squash whistleblowers from coming forward.
I agree with Mish about his points on flag burning, for example. Trump is clearly wrong in trying to limit that unless someone is doing something at the time of burning the flag which is inciting violence. While I’m not familiar with the EO, I would think this is the point of what Trump is trying to do, but if I’m wrong on that account, then this is clearly wrong of Trump to attempt to curtail that kind of 1A expression.
On the flip side of that, I do believe we’ve let WAY too many America hating foreigners into the country, so the easiest way to eliminate that problem is to deport as many of those who aren’t citizens as we possibly can. I’m cool with that.
Biden was a literally a dementia induced moron who didn’t know his head from his asshole. So, I guess the answer is no, I didn’t like how Biden’s administration went about trying to censor conservative speech, as an example.
Thanks for writing up your thoughts, Ben.
Mish, none of this is new. Trump’s autocratic tendencies were in full display back during his first term. He even ordered the then Secretary of Defense to unleash the military on protesters.
During the campaign, he literally said that he would be “a dictator for one day” in order to arrest and eliminate his opponents.
I am surprised that people who voted for him appear to be surprised.
They are perpetually surprised, LOL
“permits certain reporters regular, unescorted access ” Why should reporters be free to roam the military HQ in the first place? And why not allow OANN or Breitbart the privileges left biased news outlets had? MISH is back to his TDS that he suffered from in Trump’s first term mainly due to tariffs. The NYT, WaPo and other leftie outfits had free rein under Biden and Obama. Time to stick it to these propaganda outfits. They lied for the govt. about Covid, Russiagate,Hunter’s laptop etc. No tears shed(lock) for them.
People have all the freedom of speech in the world until they pose a threat to people in power.
Sentient: “I’m against the government shutting down the press over supposed lies. I’m also against the supposed press peddling government lies.”
OK we are both against lies. Hooray!!!
Who gets to determine lies?
You?
Trump?
Me?
Who?
Dude, your TDS is pretty bad today. You need to stick to the *economic* articles.
1. There is no First Amendment issue here. The reporters can still report on whatever they want. They’re just going to have to work a little harder for it.
2. This isn’t overturning 94 years of press freedom, because the reporters *already had* freedom of the press at the point 94 years ago when whatever *privilege* is being revoked here was granted.
3. Kessler’s article contains fallacies. For example:
“Imagine the reaction of Fox News if it was told that it could only report the official view of the Pentagon or its reporters would be banned.”
Banned *from having the privilege* of walking around the Pentagon. Not from exercising their 1A freedom of the press right. If Trump suddenly banned the White House press pool, would that violate 1A? No.
And Kessler quoting Hillary Clinton? Seriously? Insulting.
4. Making fun of Democrats pandering to illegal aliens by depicting them wearing a sombrero and having a thick mustache is not racist because it isn’t expressing a belief that the underlying culture is inferior. Take your TDS pills and chill
5. People that want to destroy their personal property (i.e., burn the flag) to express disagreement with their government aren’t idiots any more than people who go on their own blog and let their TDS go wild with blog posts that are not core to what their blog started out being, which was about *economics*.
if Trump says “Good health is important”, the next day the New York Times will have an article “Good health is overrated”.
The TDS is losing them elections. Their only policies seem to be “unlimited illegals and free stuff for them”, “DEI”, “high energy cost and taxes”. Not a good agenda.
Strawman much?
No, it’s an example. I was not arguing.
The question implies that someone or some entity should determine lies vs truth. I don’t believe that there should be any such official entity. Usually those kvetching about “misinformation” or “disinformation” are the least trustworthy. Let anyone who purports to be a journalist publish whatever they want. Weigh competing assertions against each other. Occasionally a portion of the truth is inadvertently let out – usually as an admission against interest somewhere around the 18th paragraph.
I’m not particularly concerned about the pentagon (or any other organ of the military industrial complex) limiting access to their briefing rooms because I don’t think that anything useful can be gleaned there. It’s almost like a journalist’s trustworthiness is inversely related to their access to the levers of power. Those who are granted access are generally mere stenographers for those they claim to “cover”. That’s been true long before this Hegseth pronouncement.
Dang! Those fascists are violating my First Amendment right to explore Minuteman missile sites and take pictures of the fun I have inside.
Jeez. Read the thing. It’s tells where you can walk, park, and click at the Pentagon. And, if they think you’re a threat, they’ll keep you out of the building. Now, are they going to be even-handed about who is locked out? Of course not. Their job is to respond to threats. It’s what they do.
This NYT news-gap-filler looks like “General, the American people have a right to know. When will you be attacking the enemy?”
There is no First Amendment aspect to this thing. This memo doesn’t stop you from talking. At most, you won’t be welcome inside the Pentagon if they don’t trust you.
– The Pentagon said it would forbid reporters from gathering any information that had not been authorized for release, and would revoke press passes from any journalists who did not obey.
> So Reporters are not to “Gather” (ie. To Collect or Accumulate) Unauthorized Information for Release. So things like Leaks will no longer be tolerated by the leaker and the receiver of said Leak, unless Authorized. Fair, Simple, and logical for many reasons.
>> How about here say, no evidence, no record, so basically here say or perhaps even a Lie. This is tiresome when reported statements are talked or written about, but no individual is quoted and/or listed as Authorized to do so?
>>>I love freedom of speech, and freedom of lots of things, but they should have limits or guidelines. If it’s Private (Non-Public) then it should not be shared with others unless Authorized to do so. If someone is quoted, then we have a Right to know Whom Said Such statement, if it is going to be used as factual and/or believable information. A Name(s).
In Life one must have boundaries IMHO.
If the people at the Pentagon are afraid?
I think that Mish might just disappear from the internet and turn up in an ICE prison.
At least we remember freedom!
mel·o·dra·ma /ˈmeləˌdrämə/ noun
You remember freedom when you could not post a funny meme on social media before a “fact checker” checked the… meme???
Freedom when Covington high school kids (minors!) were doxed and publicly humiliated for something they didn’t do?
PS. On another topic 13,000 people have been arrested in the UK for social media posts (far more mild than posts in the US). That’s the freedom of the Left.
This doesn’t mean that the government has to share or make available information it doesn’t want to, outside of any law requiring them to do so.
Far too many people today seem to believe that their life is like they are watching the Truman Show, where they want to be able to sit back, see everything that is happening and have a say in how the show moves forward.
Israel’s Gaza war is one prime example with the international media constantly pining that they aren’t allowed into the middle of a warzone for first person reporting. As if this is some sort of right that they are entitled to! It’s not.
Well put Jojo!
Idiocy – both of you because “This doesn’t mean that the government has to share or make available information it doesn’t want to”
while correct, has nothing to do with anything I wrote.
“Congress shall make no law …abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;…”
– This doesn’t mean that the government has to share or make available information it doesn’t want to, outside of any law requiring them to do so.
> While True, we also have the FOIA for these types of request. So if it is allowed to be shared, you have access, but they don’t have to share it just to do so.
– Far too many people today seem to believe that their life is like they are watching the Truman Show, where they want to be able to sit back, see everything that is happening and have a say in how the show moves forward.
> Boy is that the truth! It’s like the old South Boston Neighborhoods, where I lived anyway, where every 3’rd or 4’th window, had a person keeping an eye on things! My Mom just called some neighbors if she felt like checking up on me or my siblings. Best not try to steal a winter shoveled out parking spot or move someone’s barrel away, or everybody will know who the scumbag was by the next day for sure! They may find themselves shoveled in for doing so, just saying…
– Israel’s Gaza war is one prime example with the international media constantly pining that they aren’t allowed into the middle of a warzone for first person reporting. As if this is some sort of right that they are entitled to! It’s not.
> It’s as if narrating it, will somehow have everyone fall in line to that spewed idea, or suggestion. It’s the Media’s version of a nose ring, and they are pulling you along by it, and showing you what to Say & Do…
– Idiocy – both of you because “This doesn’t mean that the government has to share or make available information it doesn’t want to”
> Why?
– while correct, has nothing to do with anything I wrote.
> Who said it did? It was not addressed to you, but rather a factual statement? Are you Paranoid or has something got you so perplexed that you’re confused?
Well, Mish, it looks like the libertarian dream for USA has not only paused but gone in reverse. (“To thunderous applause”, as Natalie Portman said in that dreck of a franchise.) Not just with this admin, of course.
Sucks that there isn’t a new empty continent or planet nearby.
They don’t like your point, so they’re spewing distractions.
True, but intentionally shooting journalists by the dozens is another indication that a nation is hellbent on hiding the truth.
You have over simplified a complex issue. The media has gone to war against Trump, and they don’t even pretend to be objective in their reporting. It is all one sided, always antiTrump. If their reporting were even remotely objective, there would be no issue whatsoever, and they would be free as always to pursue the truth, nothing but the truth…….
The media is representative of their audiences. The NYT and CNN, for example is center left. WaPo is further left as is MSNBC. FOX is center right to hard right.
Remember, there are 70 million+ people who DID NOT vote for Trump and of the other side that did vote for him, a not insignificant number are having misgivings and second thoughts.
All of these people expect the media they consume to represent their political position, whether it is on Trump, freedom, immigration, Covid shots, whatever. When/if it does not, they move elsewhere.
So the media is just a reflection of its audience.
The media is nothing more than entertainment. Most of their revenue is from getting eyeballs so they can sell advertising . They don’t have to tell both sides of a story or validate the truth. People assume they do.
I have not oversimplified anything,
Do you support the Constitutional right to free speech or not?
Yes, it is 100% that simple.
I agree with William on this one. the examples you list of Trump suing companies are great examples of what he’s pointing out. Sure, it’s easier for these companies to settle than to fight, but this usually means they know they’re likely to lose on the merits of the case. The five things you can’t do in terms of speech apply to corporations as well.
The point is that some of these news outlets have moved so far left & hate Trump so much that they need to be held accountable via the civil courts. And every now & then, they literally do things that are criminally wrong.
Yes, from our side, you’re oversimplifying something to make Trump look bad. However, I do agree with a couple of your arguments, mainly flag burning.
<<In 2003, Fox News correspondent Geraldo Rivera was expelled from Iraq by the U.S. military for revealing sensitive operational details about troop movements during a live television broadcast.>>
Nobody cried about his 1st amendment rights to publicly reveal military secrets back then.
Taco admires putin so much that he wants to be just like him.
Watch Putin in discussions lasting hours. Your comparison is insulting.
Not so fast. The Pentagon will issue a similar disclosure order for employees and military personnel, punishable by prison. Additionally, the Pentagon could make ALL information classified. The press is free to report, but they will have nothing to report. We’re back to the WW2 era where “loose lips sink ships”. Those who have not figured it out will be made an example.
Yes. Technically, this doesn’t appear to be censorship per se. It’s just the Pentagram favoring those who stick to the approved narrative. Which has been the case for decades. The big mainstream media outlets have for years been how the government gets its view out. FBI > NYT. CIA > WaPo. State Department > CNN. David Ignatius acts like he has sources within the CIA, when really they just hand him a story and he publishes it.
Besides, which is worse – not being granted official access to the Pentagram – or having your car “accidentally” careen into a tree like Michael Hastings?
The US military has a history of allowing the press to operate within combat units. Joe Rosenthal was not in the military. He dressed in combat fatigues, and moved freely around the battlefield. Rosenthal was not the only civilian reporter on Iwo. There was a reporter in my Dad’s company during Guadalcanal. The press was heavily censored during the Korean War.
Paging Julian Assange.
Today more than ever we need Wikileaks or an equivalent.
Anybody put the Epstein files on there yet?
There is ample racism to go around. Every time I hear a Democrat mention illegal immigration, inside or outside government, the first thing that comes out of their mouth is, “who will pick our vegetables, or nanny our children, or clean our house, or do our landscaping?” Talk about racism — Sheesh!! I doubt most of these people have ever even spoken to an immigrant on a personal level, to think so little of them.
I’m just thinking of all the rich darling conservatives who have nothing but Russian and Polish immigrants doing all the cleaning and tending duties that you would be fine with. Like you care for immigrants of any kind. It is to laugh!
I hired several immigrants from different countries to be *programmers*, so speak for yourself.
Translation: “Couldn’t find Americans good enough at coding to work for less than $200,000/yr salary”
They were legal immigrants with US citizenship. The pay was competitive. The only people who pay non-competitively are the racists who want illegal immigrants.
QED
No real journalist would ever sign a ridiculous contract like Hegseth is demanding, nor do they need to. The only benefit to a journalist in being able to go inside the Pentagon to cover stories is to talk to people there who will give you the inside story the Defense Department doesn’t want you to know. If you sign a contract preventing you from using that info, why even bother?
So there will be two types of journalists covering the Defense Department: (1) those who sign, voluntarily agreeing to let Hegseth decide what they are allowed to publish; and (2) those who cultivate and protect sources with interesting information the Pentagon does not want revealed. The journalists in category 2 will have vastly more readers/viewers than the mouthpieces in category 1.
Category 2 journalists could very well face jail time if information is classified. Sources will get found out. Classify some bogus information and expose it only to one or two individuals. See what reporters publish, and cross off names until confidence is high enough to charge with espionage.
Your comment is not a change to the current system, it has always been that way, journalists have to do their reporting legally. The change being made is forcing journalists with access to the pentagon to run their reporting through a government censor before publishing, so they can prevent leaks from being published. If it is successful, they won’t stop with the pentagon, it will extend to the State Department, Treasury, BLS, and anywhere else they can successfully control the media message about the administration.
Isn’t this more about Wartime news reporting? With technology so good and wide spread, we don’t need anyone writing fake, or misleading stories in our press.
There is a MSM tilt obviously, and that’s OK as it’s free press, even if they wish to report things that go against our freedom etc. as they are free to write it, but information gathered on the field of battle, like locations and amount of troops, which is invaluable to the other side, and puts our Men & Woman in Danger at times.
I think they are trying to get a handle on classified leaks, and information being spewed that’s considered harmful, or even placing people at risk of their lives perhaps. The sharing of information and by various people in Our Government has reached a level of incompetence and utter disdain for Privacy, and Secrets, and our Safety most of all!
Not saying His way is 100% correct, but it’s good to hear this being talked about, and it’s about time as it’s gotten out of control!
Trump Administration Continuing Previous Administration’s Assault on Freedome of Press
Corrected it for ya!
I mean in the same week we got the goods on Google/YouTube censorship coerced by President Biden which followed the same at Facebook….this story is just a continuation of that.
Sad that it has come to this but tit-for-tat seems to be the new paradigm.
Trump is ok with Freedom of speech, so long is it doesn’t cast his masters in a negative light. I voted for him all three times that he won, btw.
Most people are similar with their own beliefs.
If it wasn’t for his assaults on freedom and democracy, I would be content to let Trump run the economy and the country into the ground in order to convince his supporters that Trump is actually quite ignorant. This does not say that Democrats were much better in regards to many policies but they didn’t attack democracy and neither did George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush or Ronald Reagan.
The longest lasting damage to the country will be the assaults on freedom and democracy. The country will become uninvestable for foreign investors and will fail to attract the brightest immigrants to further our society. This has nothing to do with taxes or spending, it has to do with freedom of thought and expression.
I know that you (Mish) stated before the election that you thought that the United States political and court system was strong enough to repel Trumps attacks on the constitution. I didn’t think so then or now. I am wondering if you are having second thoughts.
I think what many are discovering is that the framework of “freedom and democracy” isn’t locked down in a concise definition but is and has been interpreted by different people and powers in different ways.
With Trump, we are learning that much of what pases for our past understanding of “freedom and democracy” was more of a gentleman’s agreement with a few winks here and some nods there.
This has upset many people, including yourself, apparently.
Welcome to reality.
Freezing foreign assets is what made the USA uninvestable. Foreigners don’t care so much about how sausage is made within foreign borders, as long as the laws surrounding assets are solid.
Bingo!
It is basically uninvestable now to domestic investors since policy changes on a whim.
A) Mish. What was racist about Sombrero?
B). The Left is out of control.
C). Shut down the press with their lies.
D). Free speech is not free
E). Quit with your incessant fomenting and stirring up the flames.
F). I invite you to throw your damned hat into the ring and run for president. Yeah, I thought so. You don’t have the guts. You’re too busy being part of the problem instead of working towards solutions.
G). Yeah I know you’re gonna accuse me of not thinking. Guess what. ??? I don’t care what you think. You just enjoy being a bully. Go ahead. Bully me. It shows your weakness. Nevertheless I still love you. And always will.
To refresh your memory:
I’m Accused of Never Supporting Trump. Let’s Have a Fact Check
https://mishtalk.com/economics/im-accused-of-never-supporting-trump-lets-have-a-fact-check/
I Wrote In “Mish” for President of the United States
My platform:
https://mishtalk.com/economics/i-wrote-in-mish-for-president-of-the-united-states/
And who the flying F are you (you means anyone) to decide “Shut down the press with their lies”
While you (meaning you) accuse me of not supporting free speech.
You (meaning you) are one of the biggest free speech hypocrites ever.
I’m against the government shutting down the press over supposed lies. I’m also against the supposed press peddling government lies.
Sentient: “I’m against the government shutting down the press over supposed lies. I’m also against the supposed press peddling government lies.”
OK we are both against lies. Hooray!!!
Who gets to determine lies?
You?
Trump?
Me?
Who?
Now, if someone posts something libelous, they can be taken to courts and sued.
But no one can stop you from saying 1+1=3 or the moon is purple, or Trump is a fascist, or Biden is crooked.
Note that there is more leeway on public figures.
The fun thing about trump, is I can scream from the hilltops, “Trump is a child raper”, and he won’t sue me for it, yet he sues everyone else for the barest slight.
Wonder why that is…. Something to do with discovery? It’s not defamatory if it’s true.
Freedom of speech as well by handing over Tiktok to Ellison and also allowing so many media outlets/platofrms to be held by so few hands. Hands that very often put Americans second or third.
From your article “Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell”.
What a sad state of affairs when it is the “subscription paid press” that has also deceived the American people. I don’t disagree with your point, but I also don’t agree that our press works in our national objective interests. They are mostly partisan, IMO.
“They are mostly partisan, IMO.”
OK
So is Trump and every politician.
Everyone has a slant.
I am a Libertarian