For anyone who thinks the Associated Press’s lawsuit against President Trump’s White House is about the name of a body of water, think bigger. It’s really about whether the government can control what you say.
The ability to comment on politics and consume news created without interference and intimidation by the government is central to American democracy. So central, in fact, that it is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.
This principle is now under threat. On Thursday Judge Trevor N. McFadden of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia hears arguments on whether the government can bar AP reporters from covering presidential events.
The White House has locked us out simply because we refer to the Gulf of Mexico by the name it has carried for more than 400 years, while acknowledging that Mr. Trump has chosen to call it the Gulf of America.
The White House claims this is simply a matter of changing which news organizations have access to the president. But it’s nothing less than a brazen attempt to punish the AP for using words the president doesn’t like. It’s also meant to show other media outlets what will happen if they don’t fall in line.
No president of either party has been shy about letting us know when he didn’t like our coverage. They have the right to criticize us. But no president — including Mr. Trump during his first term — has ever tried to blacklist us because he didn’t like what we wrote.
The White House is shutting out an independent global news agency that provides coverage for thousands of media outlets in more than 100 countries, from local newspapers to major television networks and technology platforms — and everything in between.Four billion people see our stories each day.
As the Joplin (Mo.) Globe put it, “Denying the AP coverage is effectively denying access to our readers, too. This is a petty and indefensible attack on the press. It needs to stop.”
Our customers choose the AP because they trust us to get the facts right, to be nonpartisan, and to cover the news independently without any outside influence — especially from the government. The AP has reported extensively, fairly and accurately on both Republican and Democratic administrations.
Imagine this dispute outside the U.S. context. If you discovered that the AP caved to a different government trying to control its speech, would you ever again trust anything the AP reported from that country — or for that matter, from anywhere?
We didn’t ask for this fight. We pursued every possible avenue to resolve the issue before taking legal action. But we must stand on principle. No matter how this case ends, the AP remains steadfast in its mission to inform the world with accurate, factual and nonpartisan news — as it has for nearly 180 years.
The AP has no corporate owner and no shareholders. If we don’t step up to defend Americans’ right to speak freely, who will?
Today the U.S. government wants to control the AP’s speech. Tomorrow it could be someone else’s.
About the author: Ms. Pace is the AP’s executive editor.
