Posted on 02/26/2016 12:41:29 PM PST by ConservativeTeen
Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump on Friday vowed to "open up" libel laws in order to sue media outlets that write "purposely negative" and "horrible" articles about him.
"I’m gonna open up our libel laws, so when they write purposely negative and horrible, false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money," Trump said at a rally in Fort Worth, Texas.
"We’re going to open up those libels laws," he added. "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."
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
High profile people are not allowed to sue the way regular folks are. A very dififcult standard. And that’s a good thing. We don’t want corrupt politicians suing us into silence.
Remember the Clinton Chronicles? Zotted legally and when a single witness failed to appear in court over only one part of the tell all video.
>> Only Trump and I understand what China is doing to the USA <<
Your modesty is admirable.
What, fascism bothers you? Tsk, tsk, tsk, you forget: It's a CRISIS!!! Who cares about that old Constitution anyway? We want TRUMP!!! /s
His supporters will get it eventually, good and hard.
Yessir, you got that right.
For the Trumpeters who blindly accept all his pearls of wisdom, including this threat to the 1st Amendment:
“And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ‘round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?”
He doesn’t understand the concept of limited government.
Notice that many Trump supporters are more than willing to criticize him when we think he deserves it. You guys had no retorts yet. Maybe now, but not for a while.
Oh but wait. We’re all ‘brown shirts’ according to Glenn Beck.
I haven’t seen any Trump supporters criticize ANYTHING Trump says or does. I have seen Cruz people do that with Ted.
Beck's allusion, while stretched, is not that far off in terms of mass psychology. Trump backers have simply been immune to data. The man is every bit the flaming liar and malignant narcissist as is Obama, with the added feature of driving public discourse into the gutter. He is destroying fifty years of conservatism before your eyes, just at the moment when we have the first opportunity for a conservative government since Calvin Coolidge.
Are we angry? You bet. I'm more angry at Trump's backers than Bernie's. In backing Trump, "conservatives" have embraced government control of land, communications, and medical care, an end to communications privacy and Congress' control of whether we commit our sons to go to war. At least Bernie's backers are consistent with their beliefs.
‘Trump backers have simply been immune to data.’
I hear Rush Limbaugh repeat that old saw ad nauseum.
Did you notice who took over this thread? Trump critics. Why? Trump supporters are NOT immune to data. This is far more compelling evidence than every claim to the contrary.
Brown shirts love burning books while many Trump supporters are repulsed by such a thing.
Were we thrilled about Trump and Big Ethanol? No.
Calling us ‘brown shirts’ is either malicious slander or irrational partizanship. I strongly advise anyone against talking himself into believing it.
Such a level of partizanship that reverts to the ultimate in intellectual and seriously-phrased name calling is exactly what the Ruling Class wants.
The result will be more calcitrance, even more stubborn support. Alienation.
‘I haven’t seen any Trump supporters criticize ANYTHING Trump says or does.’
Right here on this very thread. Liz, for example. A staunch Trump supporter. But no ... we’re just ‘brown shirts’ who are ‘immune to words’ according to Rush Limbaugh and others.
Correction, Rush did not call us brown shirts. Others do. Rush just thinks we are controlled by ‘feelings’.
Yes they are. They post CONSTANTLY that he'll get rid of the current population of illegals, despite proof that he not only hires and abuses them, but wants them back, rapidly, as legal immigrants and future Democrats.
Immune. And that's just one topic.
“Not if an individual is labeled a public figure they can’t sue.”
Not true. Carol Burnett sued the National Enquirer and won. Shirley Jones sued the National Enquirer whether or not she could sue in California went up to the Supreme Court and they sided with her. After that, the NE settled with her out of court.
Sounds like the late Hugo Chavez.
He either doesn't understand it...or he doesn't have any intention of limiting his power.
“You can’t sue people for writing bad things about you. That’s called free speech.”
If your local newspaper ran story about you being a gay pedophile, I think you’d agree with Trump. Maybe not.
.
In a thread about libel and slander, why would you want to libel Benjamin Franklin?
.
.
>> “Notice that many Trump supporters are more than willing to criticize him when we think he deserves it.” <<
.
No, now that you mention it, I have not seen that in evidence. Could you point out a few examples?
.
Warn him? That’s amusing.
Imagine a liberal judge declaring that FR libels Obama, post a vanity, get sued, get the site shut down.
What a great idea, stunningly great. This guy is no conservative.
Hopefully Congress wouldn’t be interested in this idea. Who knows if he’s even serious, this might just be his way of flipping off people today. He loves threatening people, I bet he collected a lot of lunch money back in the day.
Those will be the first a President Trump will try to silence, because the first to oppose him will be the conservatives who he betrays. Levin is already anti-Trump, Rush is publicly on the fence (but privately probably supports Cruz), and Drudge will follow the popular trends and the headlines.
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.