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.