I totally agree with the submission of my learned colleague Ifeanyi Jerry Chiemeke on the GMB-AIT controversy on the alleged freedom of the press violation.My reasons are as follows:

1) The Right to Freedom of THE Press under our Laws is not absolute.
2) GMB did not ban the press/AIT from expressing their press rights which would be totally illegal under any democratic dispensation, he barred them from covering his events as a private individual.
3)GMB did not make this decision in the capacity of the President. GEJ remains the president until 29th May,2015

It is when GMB places every opinion of the press under unreasonable censorship and our opinion cannot be openly expressed. That is when the real fear creeps in.

Freedom of the press is established in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which states that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." Although the text of the amendment only specifically prohibits infringement by Congress, the Supreme Court has broadened the scope of the First Amendment to protect the freedoms of speech and press from censorship by any government entity, from the federal government down to the local police.

However, the Supreme Court has also recognized specific situations in which the government is allowed to limit the freedom of the press.
There are legal limits, for example, to how much protection a reporter can provide a confidential source. Reporters often rely on confidential sources for inside information that exposes government or corporate corruption. But if the source violated a federal law in leaking the information to the press, the reporter can be subpoenaed and required to name names, as established by the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in Branzburg v. Hayes (1972)

In 2005, New York Times reporter Judith Miller served 85 days in jail for contempt of court when she refused to name the source who leaked the identity of undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame [source: Miller]. The following year, two reporters for the San Francisco Chronicle also served jail time for refusing to name the source who leaked closed grand jury testimonies from the Barry Bonds perjury case .

Bloggers, however, are something of a special case when it comes to press freedom: In 2011, an "investigative blogger" was found guilty of libel when she posted inaccurate and damaging statements about an Oregon lawyer. The federal judge ruled that Oregon's shield law, which protected journalists from most libel claims, did not cover bloggers or other citizen journalists who are not affiliated with a mainstream media organization

In conclusion, Even Nairaland is subject to censorship despite the 'Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland'.Your freedom of speech can be limited by a private entity. It is both reasonable and legal.

Mackstokes partners

I support d motion

This case is null and void as it not absolutly binding on all media it is only biding on the prodigal media house called AIT....if this ban was placed on channel tv it would have been a diffrent case for me