Posted on 09/07/2016 6:21:23 AM PDT by Kaslin
Donald Trump tells reporters, "We're going to have people sue you like you never got sued before."
Hillary Clinton doesn't like her opponents funding documentaries that criticize her, so she demands Congress overturn the Supreme Court decision that allows it.
The world is full of people who want their enemies to shut up. Some college students get so upset seeing "Trump 2016" chalked on sidewalks that they call the police, demanding the chalkers be punished and their words erased.
But because America's founders added, "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech" to the Constitution, the police have no role here.
Those idiot college protesters want to shut me up. And I want to shut some of them up. But we have to tolerate each other. That's a good thing. The First Amendment helps keep America free.
Of course, the Amendment just says, "Congress shall make no law."
Private groups can limit speech. Fox can fire me if they don't like something I say. So can this website (or newspaper) by dropping my column. The NFL can fire Colin Kaepernick for not standing up, and a Black Lives Matter group can expel a member who does.
The First Amendment applies to government. Which is why presidential candidates should get it right. Unfortunately, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton don't.
Both have talked about "closing down" parts of the internet to fight ISIS. When frightened, some politicians promise all kinds of things to look like they're protecting us. But shutting down those areas of the Web may not be technically possible, and if it were, it would mostly hurt innocent people.
That didn't stop Trump or Clinton from proposing it and making sneering comments about free speech.
They should know that rules meant to prevent ISIS from speaking can soon become laws to suppress any opinions that politicians don't like.
The same men who created our Constitution turned around a few years later and passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which punished people for insulting politicians, as though criticizing politicians was a threat to social order. Governments in Russia, China and Saudi Arabia still think that way.
I say, not criticizing politicians is a threat to social order.
Both Trump and Clinton want to ban flag burning. But burning a flag is a form of speech, as long as you own the flag and don't endanger anyone. Government bans should be limited to real threats.
Trump says, "We're going to open up those libel laws, so that when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace, or when The Washington Post ... writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning."
It's true that libel law protects people like me so we can say what we want. I can criticize a public figure or get facts wrong, and courts will allow it as long as I wasn't malicious -- I didn't know I had facts wrong. It's a good rule; it allows media to criticize the powerful.
In his speech, Trump added, "With me, they're not protected because I'm not like other people." Right. Because Donald Trump is rich, he intimidates critics into silence by threatening to bankrupt them with lawsuits. This is not a good thing.
Hillary Clinton is a lawyer, so you'd think she would have a more sophisticated view of free speech. But she doesn't.
She once tried to ban the sale of violent video games to minors, arguing, "We need to treat violent video games the way we treat alcohol." But video games are not alcohol; video games are ideas -- speech.
Her argument was ridiculous anyway. Violence in video games has become even more prevalent, but crime has dropped and young people are less violent.
We'll never eliminate everything that offends or "triggers" people, whether they're Christian, Muslim, pro-Trump or so anti-Trump that they call the police when students chalk his name on a sidewalk.
I wish the next president were someone who understood that.
:: burning a flag is a form of speech, as long as you own the flag and don’t endanger anyone ::
One word: Monday
Clinton talks about “banning” speech she doesn’t like.
Trump talks about taking people to court over possible violations of the Libel laws.
I see a difference.
John makes a few points but winds up undecided and on a slope.
The right to conduct free speech in America and the freedom for America’s enemies to publish and distribute out-right lies in unison should never be confused.
The press is already controlled by one Party and has cowed the other Party into submission. That must be modified for the USA, as founded, to continue and it won’t be pretty when the lying press does receive modifications.
Freedom to criticize is one thing, freedom to make up what you know are lies and print them as facts are totally different. Sorry John but I have to disagree with you on this.
The same men who created our Constitution turned around a few years later and passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which punished people for insulting politicians, as though criticizing politicians was a threat to social order. Governments in Russia, China and Saudi Arabia still think that way.
Which of the Founding Fathers, that he speaks of, was around in 1918?
The Sedition Act of 1918 (Pub.L. 65–150, 40 Stat. 553, enacted May 16, 1918) was an Act of the United States Congress that extended the Espionage Act of 1917 to cover a broader range of offenses, notably speech and the expression of opinion that cast the government or the war effort in a negative light or interfered .
There is no such thing as freedom of the press. What we do have is propaganda in favor of the Democrat agenda.
Rick Monday 1976. God Bless him
NO - the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed in 1798 by the Federalists. All were repealed by the Jeffersonian Democrats except the Alien Enemies Act, which was revised and recodified in 1918.
The Democrats don’t like the Constitution, it binds them, it prevents them from what they want to do, say, live...it prevents them from ‘control’ ... ‘control’ over you and me, not them...
I hope that every reporter, achor person has a law suit for liable, for slander to character, good example: Chris Wallace towards Dr. Ben Carson...
Yep that day can’t happen soon enough...down with the Communist News!!! And down with the Butcher of Benghazi!!!
...and another one bites the dust...
I stand corrected, thanks.
Stossel got this so wrong, it's not even funny. Trump was talking about blocking ISIS propaganda originating overseas on Facebook, Twitter, etc. Basically setting up a fireWALL against those who wish to cause us harm using our own technology.
No worries, who says a history degree is useless? :-D
To think of the “responsibility of the press”, brings me to the history of Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr.
The poison pen of editorial license between these two folks, came to a head in that infamous duel, now used as a backdrop for a peanut butter commercial.
Another poison pen ‘press duel’ existed between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, which ended suddenly.
To say that ‘freedom of speech’ was not guarded in these matters, were where the ‘Perry White’ of the day was giddy with all that was printed.
Hillary has spoken on many occasions of what can be called, ‘censorship’.
Trump speaks of using ‘Libel laws’, which are legal redresses for defamation of character.
I would go with the guy suing someone, rather than someone that wishes to shut things down, because momma don’ like it.
LOL
As concerns the media specifically, their ability to do what they do for a living is the second half of an implied contract, that they will use this awesome power and respect this mammoth privilege by being honest, even-handed and thorough in their reporting.
When news services/papers/TV Shows abuse that privilege and the Public Trust by promulgating spin, lies and half-truths, the public upon whom they foist this larceny of truth should have the ability to sue them out of business.
The Congress should have the clear and simple recourse of denying their ability to propagandize by pulling their broadcast licenses, or shuttering their propaganda mill.
The sick, venal rapists who serially abuse Americans should be advised that their days of spreading their garbage without fear of consequence are numbered. Straighten up, fly right, or die. The choice is ours. You endangered bastards.
I always say that free speech has consequences and people should use their brain before opening their mouth. At the same time, I think I have the right not to listen to a person if I don't want to. Like those liberals that come on Fox News for example by using the mute button on my remote control .
I am sure you know what I am talking about.
Reading this I get the eerie sensation that I wrote it... I surely could have. I agree 1000%.
For such potentially draconian measures to be applied with discretion requires that there be an unequivocal understanding of the difference between expounding foul or offensive opinions (not a liability-incurring violation), and advancing as fact provable falsehoods to advance a specific agenda (a clear violation).
That "mute" button is a lifesaver! I can't believe that I now have to sometimes switch to CNN for more even-handed Trumping than I can get on FOX... wistful sigh...
Americans are so fortunate to have this right basically intact. In the commonwealth countries it has been brutalized by the very low bar of defamation law. Ezra Levant, a political commentator was taken to court by an government official for what he said about him and lost his case. The onus in Canada is on the accused of showing they were honest in their opinion.
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.