Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Donald Trump: We're going to 'open up' libel laws
Politico ^ | 2/26/2016 | Hadas Gold

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 1984; 2016issues; censorship; firstamendment; freedominion; freedomofspeech; freespeech; ignoranceisstrength; lawsuit; libel; ministryoftruth; seditionact; trump; trumpelthinskin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220221-234 next last
To: Larry Lucido

In theory you can’t change elections but I can’t remember ANY equivalent in American history-—not even Goldwater-—where elites were so arrayed against the average voter.


201 posted on 02/27/2016 4:00:53 PM PST by LS ("Castles Made of Sand, Fall in the Sea . . . Eventually" (Hendrix))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: LS
You can’t sequester electrons

Electrons, not elections.

You can sequester copies of Time, but you can't easily stop random people with computers from disseminating information.

By the time the court decided whether to allow distribution of the hard copies of National Review or The Nation, the data will already be all over the place.

202 posted on 02/27/2016 4:08:47 PM PST by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: LMAO

Welcome.
Surprised at the people who don’t mind opening the door for tyranny.


203 posted on 02/27/2016 4:16:41 PM PST by Darksheare (Those who support liberal "Republicans" summarily support every action by same.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare

You said...
“Surprised at the people who don’t mind opening the door for tyranny.”

But it’s “their” tyranny:)


204 posted on 02/27/2016 4:22:11 PM PST by LMAO ("Begging hands and bleeding hearts will only cry out for more" Anthem by Rush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: dschapin

But that’s the point. The “The NY Slimes” writes their screed with malicious intent. The same way Blather broke that BS story about Bush. Blather lied with malicious intent. Our founders intended for a truthful press, not what we have right now.


205 posted on 02/27/2016 5:03:01 PM PST by phs3 (FUBO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: dschapin

Paul Ryan will be too giving press conferences on his .0001% tax cut to pass anything Trump wants.


206 posted on 02/27/2016 5:09:13 PM PST by ObamahatesPACoal ( REINCE PRIEBUS: Yeah, but no...you google Ted Cruz ... and immigration...Those are his words,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dschapin

If the Washington Post decides to do an expose on “dschapin” of Free Republic and says you have been shown to have dalliances with women in 23 states, as long as the Washington Post said there was no malice, that should be okay?


207 posted on 02/27/2016 6:25:15 PM PST by ConservativeMind ("Humane" = "Don't pen up pets or eat meat, but allow infanticide, abortion, and euthanasia.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: dschapin

We’ve all spent years here on FR complaining about the media, in fact FR in of itself is a result of a biased and corrupt media.

Now we’ve FINALLY got a candidate who’s NOT AFRAID, and going to stick it to the media, and you want... WHAT?!!!!!

Good lord. What’s wrong with you people?


208 posted on 02/27/2016 7:06:52 PM PST by JPJones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Charles Henrickson

Really? Or is that a lie?


209 posted on 02/27/2016 7:16:47 PM PST by ConservativeMind ("Humane" = "Don't pen up pets or eat meat, but allow infanticide, abortion, and euthanasia.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMind

It would be easy to prove malice in that case since they would have no evidence and they would know that publishing such a scurrilous lie would hurt my reputation. That is why they would never publish that story because I would easily be able to sue them for libel under current law.


210 posted on 02/27/2016 7:20:10 PM PST by dschapin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: annieokie

If WaPo decided to write an article that said you had slept with dozens of men, infecting the last eight with HIV, would that be acceptable, as long as you can’t prove they had specific malice toward you?

My bet is on you wanting to sue them.


211 posted on 02/27/2016 7:20:15 PM PST by ConservativeMind ("Humane" = "Don't pen up pets or eat meat, but allow infanticide, abortion, and euthanasia.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: dschapin

How do you prove malice, when they had “no reason” to go after you?

“It was an accident, anyway.”


212 posted on 02/27/2016 7:22:41 PM PST by ConservativeMind ("Humane" = "Don't pen up pets or eat meat, but allow infanticide, abortion, and euthanasia.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMind

The malice can be shown by demonstrating that they knowingly told false information about you in a way that they knew would hurt your reputation.


213 posted on 02/27/2016 7:30:14 PM PST by dschapin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMind

Actually since I am a private citizen it would be really easy to prove the libel case. But even if I was a public figure I still would be able to win that libel case. Basically I just have to show that they knowingly told a lie about me that they knew would do me harm. If I can prove those two things then I have proven malice.


214 posted on 02/27/2016 7:31:41 PM PST by dschapin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: dschapin

“That is why they would never publish that story because I would easily be able to sue them for libel under current law.”

Ok, how about if the media spent years and decades fostering class hatred, degenerate life-styles, failed economic systems, racial hatred, ethnic strife, one party over the other, outright lies, and big wasteful government at all levels, in the news, non-news and educational media, could you sue them for that under “current law”?


215 posted on 02/27/2016 7:35:21 PM PST by JPJones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: JPJones

No, and that is exactly the sort of political arguments that I don’t want the media to be able to sued on. That’s because I don’t want a government court making a decision about which political ideas or causes are true and which ones are false. Realize that any court which can try to muffle the press’s support of BLM can also try to muzzle FR and the prolife movement.


216 posted on 02/27/2016 7:42:08 PM PST by dschapin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMind
Since that is just a hypothetical which would never happen, I am for Freedom of the Press, Free speech all around, without that we have no Free Nation. We would have Russia, Cuba or any Dictatorial nation. You want that?

Free Republic would even be effected, you would not be able to voice any opinion., you want that?

We may not like what they write, and detest their motives, but it is still the best way to weed out fraud, corruption and all other sorts of illegal activity no matter who it is.

Without the press there would never have been a Watergate.

217 posted on 02/27/2016 7:45:24 PM PST by annieokie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: dschapin

“No, and that is exactly the sort of political arguments that I don’t want the media to be able to sued on. That’s because I don’t want a government court making a decision about which political ideas or causes are true and which ones are false.”

How nice of you. Still playing by the rules as the country goes down the toilet, mainly because of a utterly corrupted media.

“Realize that any court which can try to muffle the press’s support of BLM can also try to muzzle FR and the prolife movement.”

Lol, you think the courts HAVEN’T already muzzled FR and the prolife movement!? Try to log in to FR on Amtrak, see what happens.

Where do you live...Fantasyland?

The Media is our enemy.

Wade into them.

Spill their blood (not literally)...

/Patton


218 posted on 02/27/2016 8:06:56 PM PST by JPJones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

Comment #219 Removed by Moderator

To: annieokie; dschapin
All of the anti-Trump people on this thread appear to have not read this article. This is NOT how the press was handled until the crazy 1960’s. From the link:

Since 1964, when the Supreme Court ruled on “New York Times vs. Sullivan,” public individuals who wish to sue media companies for libel are required to prove that the news organization knowingly published false information with malicious intent.

The late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said in 2012 that he “abhors” the ruling, saying it gives news organizations the freedom to “libel public figures at will so long as somebody told you something.”

Have you thought back to when “news” stopped being “news?”

Trump is completely right on this.

220 posted on 02/27/2016 8:48:02 PM PST by ConservativeMind ("Humane" = "Don't pen up pets or eat meat, but allow infanticide, abortion, and euthanasia.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220221-234 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson