[vbmoneyspender]

If anyone is interested in what the United States would be like if we adopted Trump and the poster's position on limits to the 1st Amendment, then look to Britain. It is very easy in Britain to sue people for saying things you don't like and as a result Britain has become a magnet for defamation suits by rich plaintiffs like the Saudis.

Rachel Ehrenfeld never set out to become the face of this issue.

"I just set out to write the truth, to expose those who funded terrorism," she says.

Ehrenfeld runs a think tank in New York called the American Center for Democracy. In 2003, she wrote a book called Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed, and How to Stop It.

The book accused a wealthy Saudi businessman of funding al-Qaida. The businessman, Khalid bin Mahfouz, sued Ehrenfeld in a British court.

"I did not live in England, I do not live in England, the book was not published there, so why not come and sue me in the United States?" she asks.

The reason is simple.

"English laws are much more favorable for someone looking to protect their reputation," says Jenny Afia, a lawyer in London who often represents people making libel and privacy claims.

Ehrenfeld's case was an example of "libel tourism," where someone brings a libel claim in a country where he is most likely to win. Often, that country is Great Britain.

"Crooks and brigands from around the world come here to launder their reputations, where they couldn't get exculpation in either their home country or indeed in the United States of America," says Mark Stephens, a London lawyer who often represents media companies in these cases.

In American courts, the burden of proof rests with the person who brings a claim of libel. In British courts, the author or journalist has the burden of proof, and typically loses.

"So you've got the rich and powerful shutting down and chilling speech which is critical of them," says Stephens.

[patlin]

It just boggles the mind how so many here say they are for the constitution, yet reject the notion that anyone should be held responsible for damaging another person’s reputation via their pen/mic. This as absurd! And it is the reason the word “conservative’ no longer means what it did when the 1st Amendment was adopted, not, the word ‘conservative’ is speeding head first into the cesspool of socialist liberalism.

[erkelly]

So up until 1964, the press could be held responsible for publishing libel. Then in the early 1970s, Watergate happened, not only was a decent man hounded from office but, worse, the war in Vietnam which we had won on the ground, it was lost by this lying 5th column in the press. Ever since, this lies have been told about so many many many decent people, good solid patriots who believe in the constitution and personal liberty, and recognized the communist enemy on the left for what they were. The press has almost completely destroyed fair elections with their lying ways. Donald Trump is right, let us address this issue of libel by the press, and do something about it. The press can still lie if they wish, but let them pay for it, and let them be exposed in courts of law for their dishonest and manipulative ways! This one more thing we must do if we are to save our country, we must compel our press to be honest! The constitution is not a suicide pact.