You said...
“This is what Trump was talking about, he wasn’t seeking anything new, just a return to what the founding fathers knew to be true.”
No.
Trump was talking about opening libel laws because he doesn’t like reading or hearing negative press about him. It’s an intimidation tactic. The press has no right to libel. No one is arguing that. But who wants to fight a politician in court who has access to government agencies to bring down on them. How many times have politicians claimed bad press written about them is a lie? Well, what could end up happening, and the history or the Fairness Doctrine proves this, is a reporter may decide to not print something about a certain politician that may hurt their career but be true as the hassle wouldn’t be worth it. Even the threat of suing someone can force them to back down as the threat will be an intimidation tactic. And we’ve witnessed how Trump reacts to criticism.
It sounds great now. I mean, you’re not going to find too many sympathizers here for the MSM. But what happens when the same tactic is used against this site or Rush or Savage. Slippery slope and don’t forget the law of unintended consequences
The press don’t get to make up the stories. They need to be held to truthful reporting. For opinion articles they cannot slander.
Why would it be in America’s interest to have a press that suppresses the truths they don’t want us to know and is free to lie to control the narrative? Does Obama spring to mind? For shame. If we want to hold the press to the truth we have something to hide?
Balanced journalism, factually based with the pluses & minuses spelled out is accurate journalism. Nothing says they can’t print something negative, but if they make it up or tell half truths to change the meaning like all those partial quotes then they need to be called out and if egregious enough there need to be consequences. The press are no more angels that the rest of us, without consequences they will not moderate their behavior.
You haven’t read the case have you? Because had you, you wouldn’t have posted such an uneducated response. What Trump is saying and what Scalia said are the exact same thing, there are no restraints now, the media has become the 5th column of the government establishment, doing the bidding of the establishment.
Scalia October 11, 2011 on New York Times vs. Sullivan USSC decision in 1964:
“Now the old libel law used to be (that) you’re responsible, you say something false that harms somebody’s reputation, we don’t care if it was told to you by nine bishops, you are liable,” Scalia continued. “New York Times v. Sullivan just cast that aside because the Court thought in modern society, it’d be a good idea if the press could say a lot of stuff about public figures without having to worry. And that may be correct, that may be right, but if it was right it should have been adopted by the people. It should have been debated in the New York Legislature and the New York Legislature could have said, ‘Yes, we’re going to change our libel law.’ But the living constitutionalists on the Supreme Court, the Warren Court, simply decided, ‘Yes, it used to be that … George Washington could sue somebody that libeled him, but we don’t think that’s a good idea any more.’”
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/justice-scalia-reflections-on-new-york-times-v-sullivan
Scalia October 11, 2011 on New York Times vs. Sullivan USSC decision in 1964:
“Now the old libel law used to be (that) you’re responsible, you say something false that harms somebody’s reputation, we don’t care if it was told to you by nine bishops, you are liable,” Scalia continued. “New York Times v. Sullivan just cast that aside because the Court thought in modern society, it’d be a good idea if the press could say a lot of stuff about public figures without having to worry. And that may be correct, that may be right, but if it was right it should have been adopted by the people. It should have been debated in the New York Legislature and the New York Legislature could have said, ‘Yes, we’re going to change our libel law.’ But the living constitutionalists on the Supreme Court, the Warren Court, simply decided, ‘Yes, it used to be that … George Washington could sue somebody that libeled him, but we don’t think that’s a good idea any more.’”
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/justice-scalia-reflections-on-new-york-times-v-sullivan
“The press has no right to libel.”
Not true, the SCOTUS has determined that they can libel away as long as there’s no malicious intent behind it, and of course we know that liberals always have good intentions.