Statements from Trump:
***"We're going to open up libel laws and we're going to have people sue you like you’ve never got sued before."
***“When the students poured into Tiananmen Square, the Chinese government almost blew it. They were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength. That shows you the power of strength. Our country is right now perceived as weak…”
***Putin, who has killed journalists and is pillaging Ukraine, is a great leader.
***The editor of National Review “should not be allowed on TV and the FCC should fine him.”
***On whether he will use executive orders to end-run Congress, as President Obama has illegally done: "I won't refuse it. I'm going to do a lot of things." “I mean, he’s led the way, to be honest with you.”
***“Sixty-eight percent would not leave under any circumstance. I think that means murder. It think it means anything.”
***On the internet: “I would certainly be open to closing areas” of it.
***His lawyers to people selling anti-Trump t-shirts: “Mr. Trump considers this to be a very serious matter and has authorized our legal team to take all necessary and appropriate actions to bring an immediate halt...”
***Similar threatening legal letters to competing campaigns running ads about his record.
And on it goes…
Reagan said it best. "A man 80% on my side is not my enemy but a valued friend and ally."
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.