Posted on 02/27/2016 1:57:52 PM PST by dschapin
In his remarks today at a rally in Fort Worth, Tex., Donald Trump knew he’d make news. “I’ve never said this before,” he declared.
We’ll await the word of the Washington Post Fact Checker on the integrity of the statement, but Trump did appear to be veering into a new talking point. A media-law talking point, that is:
One of the things I’m going to do, and this is going to make it tougher for me…but one of the things I’m going to do if I win…is 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 that 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.
An attack on media law is a logical extension of Trump’s rhetoric, not to mention a threat to American democracy. After all, he has displayed a highly undemocratic annoyance with the idea that the media is independent. For months he has been attempting to get the cameras at his rallies to properly pan around the thronged arenas, the better to capture his out-of-control popularity, even when the camera operators’ job is to stay on him. He has ridiculed reporter after reporter for reporting the facts of Trump’s march through the GOP primaries. Whenever he has been busted out by investigative journalism, he has attacked the institutions that have compiled it.
...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Trump borrowed $1 Million( as in took a LOAN ) from his father and then REPAID IT !
His father died AFTER Trump had already made BILLIONS !
His father's estate was worth about $250 MILLION, at the time of his death. His estate was DIVIDED amongst his wife and his living progeny. YOU DO THE MATH....your post is another stupid LIE !
One question. Under your system who gets to determine what is a lie and what is truth?
The answer to the problem is to have more ethics in journalism. How we get there is the problem.
*************************************
Isn’t that the truth. Ethics are not taught anywhere except maybe home schools - certainly doesn’t happen in “journalism school” (whatever that is). I can’t think of too many in the media who #1. can be considered ‘journalists’ or #2. have “ethics” ... Sharyl Attkisson & Catherine Herridge are the only ones that come to mind.
A) Don't we already have laws against libel?
B). How exactly would Trump be able to "open up" the libel laws? With his phone and his pen?
You said...
“The lying media should be made to be held accountable! The 1st Amendment isn’t there to protect lies, it is there to protect ones right to speak the TRUTH!”
I’ve heard similar things from organizations like CAIR.
I agree with Scalia on this——https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2012/12/04/antonin-scalia-hates-nyt-v-sullivan/
McCain tried to restrict the 1st Amendment too.
That’s not true at all - if something is published that is deliberately false they can in fact be sued by a public figure.
This is one of the scariest things ever uttered by a politician and yet you defend it just because it was said by Trump. You will literally defend anything this man says and just make things up to do it.
My wife LOVES Judge Judy and all the rest of them and I have sat in on a few hours in my lifetime
I can't, for the life of me, believe how some people come on national TV with no evidence or no proof or a story SO full of holes that a fourth grader could pull their coats to 'em ...
And it THAT'S the mentality Trump wants to target, I say ... Sic 'em, Donny
So, you’re saying that the “right” to deliberately lie about someone is fundamental to democracy. Libel is against the law. Libel does not have anything to do with political arguments, unless your political argument is a deliberate lie about another person.
If you TRULY believed in the Constitution, then WHY are YOU supporting a candidate for president, who is INELIGIBLE fore that position?
I think we should start with holding the media accountable for calling Polish political asylum refugees “polish” and “illegals”.
And Rubio might want to answer the question as to why it’s fine for his parents to have come to America as ‘political refugees’ but Polish ‘political refugees’ are a group to be pointed to as ‘illegals’.
A STATE OF LIMBO RULES THE LIVES OF POLISH ALIENS
BY SAMUEL G. FREEDMAN
Published: February 21, 1982
“{until} Congress passed the Refugee Act of 1981...immigrants from Communist countries automatically received the status of refugees, allowing the influx of Poles and Soviet Jews “
http://www.nytimes.com/1982/02/21/nyregion/a-state-of-limbo-rules-the-lives-of-polish-aliens.html
and for the uneducated masses of journalists, there’s good bibliography here to bring them up to speed:
http://ushist315.just-jack.org/
-- Do Trump supporters really want the courts deciding which political arguments are ok and which ones are incorrect. --
News flash, they already do. The issue is the standard that limits reporting to something resembling truth. As it stands now, it is not defamatory to publish lies against public figures, short of deliberate malfeasance. Press outlets DO respond to cease and desist letters to avoid litigation of the issue, on a case by case basis. If the press decides that an ad crosses the line from vague critique (he's a liar) to outright falsehood (he said "such and so"), they will not run the ad.
Does the Washington Post know how to do that? I think they do.
When a news organization deliberately lies with the malicious intent to damage a public figure they can be sued under current law.
Your uneducated assumptions are patently ridiculous !
You said...
“No I wouldn’t. If Cruz had proposed this then I would be announcing today that I no longer support him. I care about the Constitution and our freedoms far more than I care about supporting any man or politician.”
Agree 200%
Trumpers like what Trump is suggesting here because they hate the liberal media as much as we do. But people like myself and you love the Constitution more than we hate the media. The Trumpers don’t seem to think beyond a Trump presidency. They assume he will always love them and be in the WH forever
And Americans have already figured the media out.
As I have said before I believe the only way to win this debate is to break up the cartel of Leftist ownership of the news media just like they broke up Ma Bell back in 1982.
Only six Leftist organizations, persons own the entire of our news dissemination in todays market. Mid twentieth century there were over fifty such “owners” of news dissemination, and more objective news was available.
We need a truly conservative congress, and a truly conservative President to achieve the restoration of our Constitution. Issues have to be this, and the dissolution of every one of the unconstitutional departments provided the Executive Branch, and their supporting bureaucracies.
A fact-based piece that laid out both sides of the argument would be nice. “We report, you decide...”
Here’s a scenario.
A man is arrested on the accusation of rape.
The media splatters his picture everywhere. His name. His history. His address and family connections. Everything.
The victim is completely sheltered.
Turns out that she lied.
He’s still ruined. She’s still sheltered.
Does that man have a lawsuit?
This happens every freaking day.
Who is responsible for destroying the man’s reputation?
THE PRESS.
The woman makes her accusations, but it’s the choice of the press to make those accusations public.
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.