When the WH refuses to do on camera briefings...

[Jayster84]

When the WH refuses to do on camera briefings, someone with great talent (not me), should use the audio and act it out with puppets.

What do you think?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Great idea. Muppets? Punch and Judy marionettes?

Or get Melissa McCarthy to lip-sync?

[TrollBuster9090]

10. Yeah, Punch and Jody would work well every time Spicer gets snippy

gets snippy with a reporter. The audio would have his voice being snippy, while the video shows him belting the reporter over the head with a bat.

[klook]

2. Here's another idea - bring out a camera

and start capturing video. When they toss you, sue the shit out of them for violating the First Amendment.

[former9thward]

13. Which section of the First amendment is being violated?

[klook]

14. Let's see now.... if memory serves, I believe we have something called freedom of the press.

I realize they haven't passed a law to prohibit video of White House press briefings. So it should be legal to record them, right?

[former9thward]

16. No.

The Supreme Court has never allowed video of its proceedings. There is no "law" which says that. Governmental units have every right to ban video if they choose.

[klook]

17. A contrary view.

'In another interesting case from 1988, the Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office didn’t like a story by the Times-Picayune so as retaliation the deputies stopped notifying the newspaper’s reporters of press conferences, and also barred them from attending press conferences if they did find out about them. In Times-Picayune Publishing Corp. v. Lee, the court held that this move by the Sheriff’s office violated the First Amendment. “Discriminatory governmental action aimed at the communicative impact of expression is presumptively at odds with the First Amendment. Above all else, the First Amendment means that the government cannot restrict freedom of expression on the basis of its ideas, message or content,” the federal court found.

Courts have said that it is permitted for government officials to enforce other kinds of restrictions to journalists. For example, it would be okay for Trump to do a million exclusive interviews with Fox News, and never give one to ABC. However, when it comes to press conferences and briefings that are supposed to be open to the media, the rules are different.

CNN and The New York Times have not indicated that they plan to take legal action, but as you can see, if they did they very well may have a winning case.'

More: http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/trumps-ban-of-reporters-at-press-briefing-isnt-just-wrong-its-unconstitutional/

[former9thward]

18. No again.

That case had nothing to do with video. The White House is having press briefings to those authorized to be in the room. Just not allowing video some of the time. There is nothing which stops them from doing this. Again, the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court, does not allow video.

[klook]

21. Did you read the rest of the article I quoted? More from the same source -

'“It’s unconstitutional when President Trump has said he doesn’t like CNN and the New York Times and then excludes them from a press conference. It’s a content-based ban and the government generally cannot enact laws or restrictions that punish speech based or restrict public access based on content. Courts have held that a government press conference is a public forum generally open to the media, and any restrictions must be based on reasons other than content,” First Amendment attorney and LawNewz columnist Susan Seager said.'

I know, "No again" again. You disagree, and you've made it clear you're not considering any other viewpoints on the issue.

I think this ban is worth fighting, whether or not it results in a court victory. This is the latest step in the Trump administration's move toward autocracy, and an important front in the battle against them.

This is as far as I'm going down this rabbit hole with you.

[FakeNoose]

3. Bring back Bert and Ernie - the Muppets!

I love it.

[csziggy]

4. I still think they should use John Oliver's idea for the Supreme Court

And re-enact the press conference with dogs:

The John Oliver show gave us raw footage of the Supreme Court dogs with no sound - let's adapt it to Spicer and a few reporters!

[Ilsa]

15. That was great! Thank you! nt

[David__77]

5. Court sketch artists.

...

[annabanana]

7. CARICATURE artists!

Last edited Mon Jul 17, 2017, 09:40 PM - Edit history (1)

Like on the Boardwalk at Atlantic City. Appropriate!

[David__77]

12. The best would be a cross if the two.

Subtle enough to be not obviously a charicature.

[ashling]

6. This sounds like a job for

Keith Oberman and the popsicle stick puppets

[Jopin Klobe]

8. "use the audio and act it out with puppets" ...

... but, that's exactly what they do when they allow the cameras to be turned on ...

[annabanana]

19. Ah hahahahahahah. . .n/t

[TrollBuster9090]

9. Great idea!

That puppet that Kimmel had of Conway was pretty good. They should make one for Spicer and Huckabee.

Alternatively, whoever made the puppets for an old show called Mr. Meaty would probably do a good job. The puppets they made for that show were ABSOLUTELY REVOLTING!

[magicarpet]

11. Gorilla theater that would have them screaming lights, camera, action.

[ksoze]

20. That's exactly what they want us to do - so don't

to reinforce their anti-media message. They would use that by saying the media lies and mocks the nations highest office.