banning

Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed a bill that prohibits third-party brokers from advertising, selling or transferring tee-time reservations at publicly owned golf courses without the written consent of the course operator.

The state legislation is a response to a network of brokers that had sprouted up around Los Angeles municipal golf course tee times.

These brokers, many of whom were in the Korean community, would gobble up tee times, then advertise them on social media, particularly the Korean app KakaoTalk. They charged up to $40 as a booking fee.

Getting tee-time reservations at L.A. municipal golf courses had long been difficult. But after golf influencer Dave Fink revealed evidence of the broker network to his viewers, the problem became public.

“This is an issue that affects everybody who pays taxes in the city, and anybody who plays golf as well, so I just felt like it was my duty to say something,” Fink said in an interview with The Times in March 2024.

After Fink’s videos went viral, the L.A. Department of Recreation and Parks announced an investigation into the practice.

The state has more than 200 municipally owned golf courses, according to Assemblymember Christopher M. Ward (D-San Diego), who authored the bill.

“Public golf courses belong to the public, and residents shouldn’t have to compete with brokers buying up tee times just to turn around and sell them at inflated prices,” he said in a statement Sunday.

The legislation “puts an end,” he said, “to this unfair practice and helps ensure local residents, seniors, students and families can continue accessing the public courses their communities support.”

In a statement on Saturday afternoon Archbishop Eamon Martin called for “prayers and support for a peaceful resolution to complex Garvaghy Road situation”.

The Catholic primate said he shared the “sense of shock and disappointment of so many people at recent developments”.

“I also appeal for support for the patient use of solely lawful and democratic processes to resolve this deeply complex and emotive situation.”

Fr Peter Clarke, from St John the Baptist in Portadown, said he was concerned the march would “clash” with parishioners coming and going from the church.

He said he had emailed the commission to express his concerns and stated he “doesn’t know how they came to” their conclusion.

Parishioners at St Patrick’s Church on William Street are also likely to be affected ahead of the 10:00 service, according to the priest.

He added “tensions are high” in the community, and said he will be addressing the situation during Sunday’s service.

The decision to give the go-ahead for the parade came after the five-person Parades Commission, led by Prof Evelyn Collins, held face-to-face talks with the Orange Order earlier this week, and a separate meeting with the residents’ coalition.

Senior police officers were also consulted about the planned parade.

Within the 31-paragraph determination by the Parades Commission, details were revealed of conversations held with the PSNI.

The document stated: “The police made both written and oral submissions, indicating that they, at the time of making them, had no information indicating that the parade would result in disorder or violence.”

The Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) said it had activated “mutual aid arrangements to support contingency planning for a policing operation” in Portadown on Sunday.

It is understood about 200 officers are coming from Scotland.

Since returning to office in January 2025, Trump and administration officials have repeatedly clashed with members of the White House press corps. In his second term, Trump has also moved to bring conservative bloggers, influencers and other media into the press room, arguing it is necessary to provide diverse perspectives to the American public.

In February, the White House announced it was taking control of the press pool which has access to Trump and had for more than a century been managed by the White House Correspondents’ Association.

The same month, the administration moved to bar Associated Press (AP) reporters and photographers from spaces where access is limited, such as the Oval Office or Air Force One, because of the outlet’s usage of the term “Gulf of Mexico” instead of “Gulf of America”.

AP swiftly filed a lawsuit and the case remains ongoing.

The president has frequently clashed with reporters in the Oval Office on Air Force One and during White House events, often referring to them as “fake news” and “rude”.

In his first term, Trump also banned CNN correspondent Jim Acosta from the White House, although his credentials were restored after CNN sued.

CNN is one of only five US news outlets that film video for the pool. The pool refers to an outlet or reporter sharing material from a presidential event with other media outlets. The BBC contributes to the White House radio pool.

The announcement was immediately criticised by leading advocacy organisations for freedom of the press.

In a statement on Friday afternoon, the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University said that “with so many courts having ruled against him on exactly this point, you’d think President Trump would have learned this lesson by now”.

“If President Trump means to expel these news organizations from the White House press pool, his action is doubly unconstitutional because the press pool is a ‘public forum’ under the First Amendment, which means the president can’t exclude journalists from it on the basis of their viewpoints,” said the institute’s executive director, Jameel Jaffer.

A major group that provides legal services to the media – the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press – said it expected Trump’s ban to be struck down quickly by the courts because it was “flatly unconstitutional”.

“The First Amendment is clear that once the White House invites in some journalists, it can’t ban others because it doesn’t like their reporting,” said the group’s president Bruce Brown, calling the potential ban “textbook viewpoint discrimination”.

The Freedom of the Press Foundation also said it was illegal, adding: “It’s also hard to imagine a dumber move”.

Trump “has been retaliating against the press for years, but it hasn’t helped him,” it said, saying “these outrageous attacks only demonstrate how scared he is of an informed public”.

Trump has pursued legal action against a number of US and international news outlets, including The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times and the BBC.

Some of the lawsuits have resulted in media organisations agreeing to pay multimillion dollar settlements. Trump’s lawsuit against the BBC is ongoing.

President Trump announced Friday he intends to ban CNN, MS NOW, Politico and other news outlets from covering the White House, his strongest threat yet against a free press.

In a statement on Truth Social, Trump attacked the the reporting of the three outlets which he described as “FAKE NEWS!”

“Media Outlets shouldn’t be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES when they’re covering the President of the United States of America,” Trump said.

How a ban would be enacted remains to be seen. In 2018, the White House tried to ban journalist Jim Acosta, then working for CNN, but a court ordered that his press credential be restored.

Trump has stepped up his attacks on the press during his second term. Federal Communications Commissioner Brendan Carr has threatened the broadcast licenses of outlets Trump dislikes. Carr has called for a review of ABC’s TV licenses, which the Walt Disney Co.-owned network is challenging in court.

After the post circulated, Trump held a press briefing from the Oval Office to discuss drug pricing. According to the pool reporter, no journalist was removed from the press room.

Trump was asked about the Truth Social post. He responded by further attacking the three outlets. He did not cite any specific report that led to his call for a ban.

“I dislike dishonest press,” he said.

Trump’s remarks generated an an immediate outcry from press freedom groups.

“It’s difficult to imagine a more blatant violation of the First Amendment than Trump banning news outlets from the People’s House for criticizing the government,” Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation, said in a statement.

“It’s also hard to imagine a dumber move. The historically unpopular president has been retaliating against the press for years, but it hasn’t helped him.”