[bko]

> However, if they allow access to one organization but not another seems there could be an argument that they're policing speech?

I think they would be allowing access to organizations that accept the procedures. Maybe you don't agree with the procedures, but it's no different than "I agree to the terms" required on pretty much every product you use.

[ricardobeat]

If the terms on the product say your access might be revoked because you asked questions about their parent company, that’s illegal and should be contested.

That said, this is entirely different – citizens have the right to know what is happening within all branches of the government, and not only via official press releases. Some level of transparency is a critical requirement for a functioning democracy (I understand the US might be a little past that point).

[bko]

Where does it say that "your access might be revoked because you asked questions"? They're journalists, that's what they do.

There's nowhere that says that a government has to give access to the grounds of a building. Did you feel as strongly when Biden gave no press conferences between November 2023 to July 2024? It's just silly to put your flag into the ground on this particular issue.

[alphabettsy]

I think your argument is exceptionally silly as is the comparison to Biden not holding press conferences.

The press had been access prior and the difference now is that they will lose access unless they agree to report what they’re told.

[xethos]

> it's no different than "I agree to the terms" required on pretty much every product you use.

And I'd have hoped that by now, consumers have learned that being in the ToS does not make something legal, let alone enforcable