crumbling Freedom of the Press too divisive to discuss?

In denying entry to select individuals, did any executive branch people break any laws? Not that I could discover.
Did Trump break any laws, or simply exercise his social prerogative through his representative, the Press Secretary? Again, I could not discover that either of them broke any laws.
(The press, the site you sent me to being a prime example, appears especially offended and pouting at not getting to swing their weight, deliver editorialized questions, or simply make statements of their political positions, at the White House press conferences as they are used to doing.)
Did Trump shut down any media outlets? Not that I could discover.
Did the press members who were excluded examine their own actions? Not that I could discover.
Was any member of the press threatened? Was the press threatened? Not that I could discover.

As I interpret this, some press members were denied entry to an invitation-only press event. Other press members were invited. The ones not invited have blown this out of proportion and claimed that Trump is denying First Amendment Rights. Some individual people were excluded, but not the press as a whole. My understanding is that the Press Secretary has the right and power to determine which press representative attend these press events. My old press card would not get me admitted, I am sure.

I will explore further.
Thank you for the suggestion.
ff

That the ''simple, acknowledged principles'' embodied in the First Amendment have occasioned controversy without end both in the courts and out should alert one to the difficulties latent in such spare language.

Insofar as there is likely to have been a consensus, it was no doubt the common law view as expressed by Blackstone. ''The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state; but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publications, - See more at: http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1/annotation06.html#1[/quote]

If I were inviting people to a press conference of mine (yes, I've held a few) I'd probably not invite the press representatives of the KKK or the far right, nor those of the far left. I'd try to invite the least biased and most accurate reporters I could find. If reporters had been disruptive, rude, or pontificating at a prior press conference, I might not invite them. If they were critical, editorializing rather than reporting, I might not invite them. If I considered them to be inimical in their reporting, I might not invite them.

Perhaps you have. However, I doubt that you held press conferences representing the Gov't of the US.
On your private property, you could allow who you wanted to hold an event. However, if it were a public space, you could not discriminate in that way.
This has to do with the difference between the inability of the gov't to "pick sides" and the private sector, which can.

Yours is a remarkably good point. But then the president is going to need a huge stadium, or live streaming, to fit in everyone who would love to be at a presidential press conference, eh? Not that there is any reason that should not happen, even if an individual is representing no more than his Neighborhood Watch newsletter. Since presently, press conferences are often held in the home of the First Family, I think there must be protocols which limit entry.

rottingjohnny

It doesn't do much good to have a free press when half the voters are illiterate...

"Crumbling military"? ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!