CNN suit is an important and necessary defense of press freedom

When the government establishes an open forum for expressive activity, the First Amendment forbids it from selectively excluding speakers because of their viewpoints. As a federal appeals court held in a case decided four decades ago, this means that the White House can’t arbitrarily bar a journalist from White House press facilities. The record strongly suggests that the White House revoked CNN Jim Acosta’s access because of the viewpoint implicit in Acosta’s questions. Because that kind of viewpoint-based exclusion violates a fundamental First Amendment principle, CNN should prevail in court.

CNN’s lawsuit undoubtedly serves its own interests as a news outlet, but it would be short-sighted to frame this as a battle between President Donald Trump and Acosta. The suit is also an important and necessary defense of press freedom.  When the court reviews CNN’s lawsuit, it must consider not only the implications of the president’s actions for CNN and Acosta, but the implications for the public, for the public’s right to information about the government, and for the vitality our democracy.

[Katie Fallow and Jameel Jaffer are the authors of this piece. Katie Fallow is a senior staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. Jameel Jaffer is director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University.]