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 ...
That is not accurate sir. They can indeed to be sued for libel. Trump is talking about the greater scrutiny of suits by public figures that is given. His proposal sounds quite tyrannical - keep the mouths of the plebes shut under threat of lawsuit by the wealthy elite and powerful politicians. It is one of the scariest things I have ever heard proposed openly by a candidate for office.
I heard Trump say that at the rally, but evidently he elaborated at some other time that I didn't hear.
Just what is his proposal?
Then he should write his own article to refute it.
And however misguided someone’s opinion may be, it is still their opinion and they have a right to express it. That is a fundamental freedom. No one should be sued over their opinion. You honestly don’t believe that should ever be the case, do you? That is a very tyrannical and downright frightening prospect you have proposed here.
Ahem, it is exactly what Scalia said should be done and it is what this country worked under until 1964.
Bring back what our Founders, Abraham Lincoln, and even FDR and Eisenhower said was right.
“prove that the news organization knowingly published false information with malicious intent.”
There’s plenty of that going around that they don’t get sued for (the fake documents over Bush’s National Guard service comes to mind - continuing with the story even after evidence was presented indicating they were in fact fake)...likely because the politicians don’t want more attention brought to an issue even if the story itself was false.
Bearing false witness is a sin. And the NYTimes is apparently the source of the LIE that Trump inherited 200 million from his father. I do not believe ‘free speech’ should include telling blatant lies. Most especially when the truth sets us free.
I don’t believe that’s what Trump is intending - he wants his critics to be silenced under threat of retribution. We already have plenty of evidence to support this. He threatened to sue Ted Cruz for running an ad with video of him proclaiming Trump’s support of partial birth abortion - nothing defamatory about it at all - the clip was not edited to make him say anything he did not actually say. He called for the FCC to silence a critic. He also supports having the government take away people’s private property and give it to him simply because he wants it for himself to build something of his own and strongly supports the Kelo decision which cemented this practice. I certainly hope my fears eventually prove to be unfounded, but all of this and more establishes an extraordinarily troubling pattern.
Yes.
“malicious intent”
...is part of every news story now.
I have seen that news of his inheritance in numerous publications over a long period of time. It does appear that he actually split that with 4 siblings and did not inherit it all...so he inherited around $40 million and not the full $200 million, which was the estimated worth of his father’s company. Trump stated he just got $1 million which also was not accurate.
Trump actually sued someone for defamation who wrote a book that underestimated his net worth. He sued him claiming damages of $5 billion. He of course lost the suit.
I left out of my above post #227 regarding Trump’s lawsuit against someone who wrote a book that underestimated Trump’s net worth - he claimed damages of $5 billion in the suit (which of course he lost)...just more to go along with that troubling pattern...suing someone for damages because someone claimed you “only” had $250 million and that this inaccurate claimed had severely damaged his reputation to the tune of $5 billion.
And also what you linked to was an opinion piece...that was that author’s opinion. An opinion can be totally whacky and idiotic but they still have a right to express it without fear of legal retribution. Now, retribution by response opinion to their opinions, that’s fair game.
Have you read the will? How about using that as basis of fact? I do not care, because I am not green with envy over how much money Trump did or did not inherit. I despise those that are filled with class envy.. The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh... and then there is that parable of the 'rich' man... GOD will judge.
A lie is a lie is a lie.... opinion or not. IF one knowingly tells a lie, and hides under an 'opinion', when the truth is easily demonstrative I have no problem filing a libel suit.
>>Just not sure exactly WHAT at this time.
"Truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate; errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them."
—Thomas Jefferson, The Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom.
http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-02-02-0132-0004-0082
How you s'pose Der Trumpenflipper's newspeak edition/replacement of the Virginia Act is gonna read?
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.