What do you contend is a significant difference?
Here is just a portion of the article.
I highlighted and underlined what the constitutional lawsuit was all about.
This is not about free speech.
From how I read the article, the constitutional lawsuit is about (access).
Hopefully the bold highlighted parts of the article puts a clarification of what the constitutional lawsuit was about.
(UPDATED with CBS statement) Fox News has come out in support of CNN in CNN’s lawsuit against the White House’s decision to pull the press credentials
of Jim Acosta, joining a dozen other media outlets announcing intent to file friend-of-the-court briefs to support CNN and its White House correspondent.
“Fox News supports CNN in its legal effort to regain its White House reporter’s press credential,
” Fox News President Jay Wallace said in a statement.
Not long afterwards, CBS also chimed in with support for the Jeff Zucker run cable newser. “CBS News supports the White House Correspondents Association and CNN’s legal effort to restore access for its White House correspondent,
” said the crew at Black Rock. “We do not believe that revoking White House press credentials
is an appropriate remedy for a disagreement the White House may have with a particular reporter. We intend to file a friend of the court brief in support of CNN’s lawsuit to defend its constitutional rights.
On Tuesday, CNN sued the White House for pulling Jim Acosta’s press credentials
the day after President Donald Trump’s thumping in the midterm elections.
The cable news network filed a lawsuit in DC District Court against Trump and top aides, including White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, and Deputy Chief of Staff/ Former Fox News co-president Bill Shine, as well as the Secret Service which took away Acosta’s hard pass
CNN demanded the return of its chief White House correspondent’s press pass.