Posted on 02/27/2016 10:02:24 AM PST by dschapin
Donald Trump said on Friday he plans to change libel laws in the United States so that he can have an easier time suing news organizations.
During a rally in Fort Worth, Texas, Trump began his usual tirade against newspapers such as The New York Times and The Washington Post, saying they're "losing money" and are "dishonest." The Republican presidential candidate then took a different turn, suggesting that when he's president they'll "have problems."
"One of the things I'm going to do if I win, and I hope we do and we're certainly leading. I'm going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We're going to open up those libel laws. So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they're totally protected," Trump said.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/02/donald-trump-libel-laws-219866#ixzz41OOQy1Ch
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
The thing is that we don’t know the specifics of what Trump is proposing. Personally, I’m all for something that lets us protect ourselves from the propaganda arm of the government. Just not sure exactly WHAT at this time.
I'm fascinated to think you might actually believe this. First, let's be clear:
1) If Cruz suggested anything remotely like this, I would immediately suspect he got his law degree at Trump University.
2) The whole reason people are staying true to Cruz despite the propaganda and defamation leveled against him is precisely because we want somebody we know will both honor and understand the US Constitution, and the President's role in defending it.
So no, it would be a deal-breaker, because it would:
a) reflect serious ignorance of the law, the Constitution, and the role of the executive branch, and
b) be a complete betrayal of the Cruz brand, conservative constitutionalist. Trump's brand is entirely different. It's just, "Trust me. I'm smarter than everybody else, and I know how to get my way." He can give lip service to the Constitution, but he's not branded on it like Cruz.
But again, my real curiosity is that you even suggest this "moral equivalence," between Cruz and Trump fans, as if this issue was entirely driven by the team jersey, and not by legal and moral substance. It seems to suggest you do not understand what drives the pro-Cruz base. If you did, you would already know what I've been saying. Interesting.
Peace,
SR
Read my later posts.
If Cruz had proposed this, you would have probably tried to fit it within what your beliefs about him are. You are certain that he’s a Constitutional guru, so you’d be trying to fit what he says into a Constitutional framework.
Conversely, you seem to be absolutely certain that Trump is pure evil, so you immediately interpret everything he says in the worst possible way.
And because I defend Trump, you ALSO assume that everything I say comes from being a cultist or ignorant or stupid or evil.
Also interesting.
Seems that my moral equivalency comment got exactly the response I intended.
Hmmm, again so interesting. I made no assumption you were speaking from a cultist mentality or ignorance or stupidity, nor did I say any such things about you. If you go back and read what I actually said, I am suggesting you do not understand what drives the Cruz base. That doesn’t mean I think you are a bad person. It only means I think you’ve arrived at an incorrect conclusion about what could break the deal between Cruz and his supporters. Sorry you took it so wrong. If we are fellow conservative here at FR, should we not be striving for mutual understanding? Instead of being at each others’ throats?
Peace,
SR
Presently, liberals use the IRS to control speech. I just happen to believe the commandment against bearing false witness applies to all. I do not believe free speech entitles me to lie.
Well then, I suppose that I just assumed too much.
I don’t WANT to be at each others’ throats, many of my past comments to the contrary. I’m just sick of people being at MY throat. I’m sick of many people who claim to support Cruz telling me that I’m going to be sent to Hell or that I’m a zombie or a cultist.
As for Trump’s comments, I’m not going to run the assumption that he wants to crush the First Amendment underfoot, like many people seem to be implying.
Strengthening libel laws may be a bad idea because it can be used against us in a non-Constitutional way, but if nothing else at least Trump is addressing the political-media alliance that’s happening. At the moment, it’s practically (and if I’m slightly cynical, literally) government propaganda.
It’s not a bad idea to defend against that.
They have free speech you don’t. Say something about gay marriage, BLM, etc. lose your job. Don’t bake a cake get sued.
Thanks. I appreciate your last post. I would say that making it easier to sue news outlets is not going to increase anyone’s free speech. The reason that public figures have a harder time suing for libel is that the Supreme Court thought that was necessary in order to protect free speech. This is because in the rough and tumble of politics there are going to be many things that one side thinks are true and the other side thinks are false. We don’t want the courts having to rule on all of those disputes.
I don’t care. The courts will stop any President or congress that tries to breach freedom of speech. Trump is doing this more so to put the press on notice. He is saying it for effect. I think libel laws are not used enough. GOP are constant targets of out right lies. I’d like to see those race baiters have to prove in a court of law that their allegations of bigotry are true.
BUMP!
Rathergate
Is knowingly publishing false information protected under the first amendment?
“Satire” is knowingly false...just a thought.
It is probable that you are correct in that assessment. I really don’t want to give more power to the courts.
At the same time, I don’t want the current media to continue to sleep with the establishment (whatever that even means any more) and get away with it while using establishment power to forcibly quash any dissent, like they have been doing. Social media is a good start, but it’s still a problem.
There’s a great wrong happening here, and I really don’t know how to address it.
Having said that, I guess that I’d want to see specifics before making judgment calls one way or the other.
A lawyer will tell you as a practical matter it is virtually impossible to prove “actual malice” and to get it to stick in court. And the categories that used to be considered “pre se” defamation, such as alleged to have a loathsome disease or being homosexual or having another sexual perversion, have all been thrown out as well.
Trump has been threatening to sue people for saying things about his record that are backed up by years of published and broadcast interviews with the man. So when he says current law should be expanded it sounds a lot like he just wants to shut everyone else up. If he's allowed to describe other candidates as losers, corrupt, bought and paid for, stupid (said that about an actual brain surgeon), etc. he really doesn't have much to complain about when the name calling comes back around.
Finally, if you examine the kinds of things that have been thrown at presidential candidate starting with John Adams through Jefferson, Lincoln, and on without recourse to the courts it should make one question whether or when Trump is going to put on his big boy pants and stop complaining.
Thanks for manning the barricades on this one.
Amazing how many seem to think that as long as it is “our” government or “my” candidate that no harm this way comes.
I don’t trust any government, and particularly not one that seems bent on growing and acquiring power day after day.
You took a lot of shots and hung in there. Cheers to you and thanks.
Welcome, and thanks.
Thanks for those links. Although doubt you changed any minds.
We are not opposing Trump on this because we love the NYTs. We understand the danger of what Trump is proposing. And that doesn’t mean we defend the right to libel. But we understand how the threat of an elected official using libel laws against news organizations could intimidate them from even printing something truthful because they could decide it’s not worth the hassle to print. The history of the Fairness Doctrine proves this
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.