Posted on 02/29/2016 10:07:16 AM PST by Kaslin
When you are done with the crystal ball, let us know?
You realize that in the 1960s, the far-left Warren Court created additional First Amendment protections for the press that do not apply to you and me. Previously, the First Amendment did not prevent a person from suing in court for damages from libel and slander. It makes sense, the First Amendment doesn't protect lies if those lies are proven in a court of law.
In NYT v Sullivan, the Court held that the press, and only the press, cannot be liable for libel or slander against a public figure unless they knew the information to be false, and had malice against the person so slandered. It is a requirement that is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution or the Federalist papers, and was made up out of whole cloth. It is such a high hurdle that basically, it is almost impossible to prove libel or slander and so those action are almost never brought, and when brought, they are never successful.
If what he is talking about is finding a way to eliminate these protections for our lying and biased press, I have no problem with that. It would probably need a new interpretation by the court, something that is very unlikely, but he can push for it and bring some attention to this issue. I'm all for that.
Quit hyperventilating about small potatoes and start to worry about whether we are going to become a communist tyranny or try to push back in the other direction.
This is exactly why Trump is winning. The Elitest GOP mindset that thinks it can dictate it’s emotion based opinions to the vast mass of GOP voters.
Hi Ben,
I was a supporter of yours....made phone calls, walked precincts, stuffed envelopes.
NOT ANYMORE!!!
"Loosening up" the libel laws is a knife that cuts both ways, and I suspect we're entering a period of our history when the right to strongly dissent is going to be critical.
So I'm with Sasse on this one.
I would also point out that Trump apparently is opposed to the Citizens United decision. Though the details of that case seem to have been forgotten by many, it was about a non-profit citizens group ("Citizens United") whose movie that was critical of Hillary Clinton was suppressed under the authority of McCain-Feingold as an unlawful expenditure attempting to influence an election.
So between Trump's position on libel laws and his apparent opposition to Citizens United, I think there are legitimate concerns about political free speech if he is elected.
Then go ahead and tell me why Cruz would support Rubio who favors amnesty? Why would Ted, such a principled human being, even consider Rubio?
LOL good one. Stats I understand!
PRINCIPLED Position would be
I do not agree with my party’s choice but as a member in good standing I have lost this debate and need to abide by the will of the party.
Or
I strongly disagree with my party’s choice so I will resign my senate seat and my GOP membership and run for the job as an Independent.
It is an ego driver temperament to say “I don’t like who the party chooses so I am going to accept all the perks of being IN the party while actively working to sabotage the will of the vast majority of the party’s voters.”
That is pompous self serving betrayal and the voters have every right to hold the Senator accountable.
Never and always are false on true false tests.
How about loser pays? How about expedited trials, or a quick procedure to determine if the claim has merit, and if so, then it proceeds to trial. Most libel cases are pretty cut and dry.
In any event, the notion that the media empires are too protected under current law has been around for decades and is not the sign of a fascist in waiting. You are just looking for justification for your opposition to Trump.
Quit closing your eyes... Trump wants to sue people for libel quoting him....
I know Trump wants to sue people for lying about him. If someone says that Mr. 11th Commandment is really a pedophile sitting in his pajamas in his grandma’s basement typing away on a Commodore, you might want to sue, too. People saying vile things about you without repercussion is very distressing, and to give the media a complete pass on doing that is now what the First Amendment provides or requires. So, I have no problem with his desire to remove some of those artificial restrictions. He won’t be able to on his own, just because he says he wants to change that law doesn’t make him a fascist who will change the law on his own. He can’t. He knows that. You know that. So why do you make up phony talking points? Just vote against him if you don’t like him, but give it up with the ridiculous arguments.
These guys are so accustomed to appeasing one and only one crowd. Their wealthy funders. With voters, they have no clue. Amazing.
please present your evidence that cruz is open borders
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.