• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

SCOTUS decisions

The entire concept of originalism is full of shit, this is just more evidence that originalists can't even apply their bullshit theory correctly and are just activists. Time to pack the courts.
 
This story doesn't really fit on this thread, but I didn't see an obvious better thread for it, and I don't think it's thread worthy, so deal with it:

About a week ago, the mayor of Chicago, Lori Lightfoot, announced that she would only give interviews with non-White journalists. Today, she was sued by a White journalist with the Daily Caller for violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendment.

https://nypost.com/2021/05/27/mayor...r-allegedly-denying-white-reporter-interview/

This is an open-and-shut violation of the Fourteenth Amendment (at least), and it's frankly baffling to me that someone would think this is permissible, much less good policy.
 
without defending Ms. Lightfoot's decision here - how does banning the ability to ask a question violate the journalist or paper's first amendment rights
 
ImTheCaptain said:
without defending Ms. Lightfoot's decision here - how does banning the ability to ask a question violate the journalist or paper's first amendment rights
Click to expand...

The First Amendment contains a number of rights (6, actually). You may have defaulted to thinking about the freedom of speech, but it also protects the freedom of the press.

ETA: I don't know enough about freedom of the press case law to know whether a policy like this would violate the press clause, but it is a clear violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
 
Last edited:
I'm not a lawyer, obviously, so I don't know the case law (other than some familiarity with the big ones e.g. plessy, obergefell, loving), but how does a local practice at the level of the mayor herself, and not even her office, constitute a violation of the 14th's "no state shall make or enforce any law".

It's not a law or even a "policy". As an employee of a public institution, if I decided I wouldn't give one-on-one interviews to a certain race of people would I be in violation?
 
Lightfoot sucks and I'm not here to defend her record

but

what she did was say she was only going to give interviews related to her two-year anniversary to journalists of color, mostly to make the statement that the entire press corp assigned to city hall is all white

it was a publicity stunt and ended up being dumb because the black journalists that interviewed her went a lot harder on her than any white journo among the typical mayor interview set would have and one of the black journalist interviews led to a protest outside her home the day it went to press
 
I read somewhere, juice, that her office "later clarified" it only pertained to anniversary interviews.
 
Wouldn't forcing her to give an interview to the Daily Caller violate her right to free speech?
 
Yet another example of white politicians freaking out when Black politicians merely suggest doing the same thing white politicians do all the time.

But hey, if Republicans want to mandate that politicians take questions without selecting by race, that's a huge net win.
 
Her problem with that decision was stating it out loud. I don't think as Mayor she has any requirements she has to grant interviews, so if she only wanted to grant ones to reporters of color, it would've been easy for her office to call around asking one if they wanted a 1 on 1 interview, vs. just stating I'm not granting interviews to white journalist.

I have no idea of the case law on something like that, but it was clearly politically stupid saying it out loud.
 
dcnelso said:
Her problem with that decision was stating it out loud. I don't think as Mayor she has any requirements she has to grant interviews, so if she only wanted to grant ones to reporters of color, it would've been easy for her office to call around asking one if they wanted a 1 on 1 interview, vs. just stating I'm not granting interviews to white journalist.

I have no idea of the case law on something like that, but it was clearly politically stupid saying it out loud.
Click to expand...

Dems saying the quiet parts out loud is seldom a good idea.
 
WokeandBroke said:
Dems saying the quiet parts out loud is seldom a good idea.
Click to expand...

I'm not even a Democrat, I'm a registered Republican, though I do vote straight Democratic at the moment because the Republican party has gone completely insane.

I don't think what she did was correct, but I honestly don't care too much either. I don't live in Chicago and don't care who interviews their mayor. But my point is still correct, the reason she's having an issue with this at all is she was stupid enough to say it out loud. Politicians can pick and choose who to give interviews to, just don't say out loud if you are going to intentionally discriminate.
 
dcnelso said:
I'm not even a Democrat, I'm a registered Republican, though I do vote straight Democratic at the moment because the Republican party has gone completely insane.

I don't think what she did was correct, but I honestly don't care too much either. I don't live in Chicago and don't care who interviews their mayor. But my point is still correct, the reason she's having an issue with this at all is she was stupid enough to say it out loud. Politicians can pick and choose who to give interviews to, just don't say out loud if you are going to intentionally discriminate.
Click to expand...

What if the recklessness was the point?
 
WokeandBroke said:
What if the recklessness was the point?
Click to expand...

Even as the point, she did it in a dumb way.

Choose a black reporter for a 1 on 1 interview, and then say I chose X because they are one of the few black reporters in the press core and I really want to encourage more people of color have access to politicians in order to bring diversity of color and opinion to the press as it lacks diversity.

She could've spun it as a positive choice instead of a negative announcement where we aren't granting interviews to white reporters. And maybe she didn't do in in the most negative way, I haven't tried to follow the specific details of this story because, to me, it's not that big of a deal and I don't live there.
 
wakephan09 said:
I read somewhere, juice, that her office "later clarified" it only pertained to anniversary interviews.
Click to expand...

maybe, I didn’t really follow too closely because it’s such a wgaf story, but I feel like the first I heard of it was post-clarification as I believe I knew the context for the interview to only be for the anniversary period when I heard it first reported to me

either way, seems to be more handwringing from the right about the lack of access that Ticker Carlson had to interview the mayor (has he ever tried?) than the fact that the entire group that typically gets access to the mayor is white
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top