[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"Analysis: The Final State of the Presidential Race"

He’ll, You Pieces of Garbage

The Future of Warfare -- No more martyrdom!

"Kamala’s Inane Talking Points"

"The Harris Campaign Is Testament to the Toxicity of Woke Politics"

Easy Drywall Patch

Israel Preparing NEW Iran Strike? Iran Vows “Unimaginable” Response | Watchman Newscast

In Logansport, Indiana, Kids are Being Pushed Out of Schools After Migrants Swelled County’s Population by 30%: "Everybody else is falling behind"

Exclusive — Bernie Moreno: We Spend $110,000 Per Illegal Migrant Per Year, More than Twice What ‘the Average American Makes’

Florida County: 41 of 45 People Arrested for Looting after Hurricanes Helene and Milton are Noncitizens

Presidential race: Is a Split Ticket the only Answer?

hurricanes and heat waves are Worse

'Backbone of Iran's missile industry' destroyed by IAF strikes on Islamic Republic

Joe Rogan Experience #2219 - Donald Trump

IDF raids Hezbollah Radwan Forces underground bases, discovers massive cache of weapons

Gallant: ‘After we strike in Iran,’ the world will understand all of our training

The Atlantic Hit Piece On Trump Is A Psy-Op To Justify Post-Election Violence If Harris Loses

Six Al Jazeera journalists are Hamas, PIJ terrorists

Judge Aileen Cannon, who tossed Trump's classified docs case, on list of proposed candidates for attorney general

Iran's Assassination Program in Europe: Europe Goes Back to Sleep

Susan Olsen says Brady Bunch revival was cancelled because she’s MAGA.

Foreign Invaders crisis cost $150B in 2023, forcing some areas to cut police and fire services: report

Israel kills head of Hezbollah Intelligence.

Tenn. AG reveals ICE released thousands of ‘murderers and rapists’ from detention centers into US streets

Kamala Harris Touts Mass Amnesty Offering Fast-Tracked Citizenship to Nearly Every Illegal Alien in U.S.

Migration Crisis Fueled Rise in Tuberculosis Cases Study Finds

"They’re Going to Try to Kill Trump Again"

"Dems' Attempts at Power Grab Losing Their Grip"

"Restoring a ‘Great Moderation’ in Fiscal Policy"

"As attacks intensify, Trump becomes more popular"

Posting Articles Now Working Here

Another Test

Testing

Kamala Harris, reparations, and guaranteed income

Did Mudboy Slim finally kill this place?

"Why Young Americans Are Not Taught about Evil"

"New Rules For Radicals — How To Reinvent Kamala Harris"

"Harris’ problem: She’s a complete phony"

Hurricane Beryl strikes Bay City (TX)

Who Is ‘Destroying Democracy In Darkness?’

‘Kamalanomics’ is just ‘Bidenomics’ but dumber

Even The Washington Post Says Kamala's 'Price Control' Plan is 'Communist'

Arthur Ray Hines, "Sneakypete", has passed away.

No righT ... for me To hear --- whaT you say !

"Walz’s Fellow Guardsmen Set the Record Straight on Veep Candidate’s Military Career: ‘He Bailed Out’ "

"Kamala Harris Selects Progressive Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as Running Mate"

"The Teleprompter Campaign"

Good Riddance to Ismail Haniyeh

"Pagans in Paris"

"Liberal groupthink makes American life creepy and could cost Democrats the election".


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles

Title: Trump Promises Harsh Media Criticism of Him Will Be ILLEGAL If He’s President (TITLE IS FALSE HE DIDN'T ACTUALLY SAY THAT)
Source: Counter Current News
URL Source: http://countercurrentnews.com/2016/ ... legal-if-he-becomes-president/
Published: Feb 27, 2016
Author: M. David
Post Date: 2016-02-27 11:46:16 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 14331
Comments: 68

Have you ever made fun of Donald Trump? Have you ever read an editorial that really lays into him with criticisms of his proposed policies, or even his hair?

Well if Trump becomes president, he promises that things will change, and these sorts of critiques will no longer be legal.

It almost sounds like satire, but during a speech in Texas on Friday morning, the Republican candidate and frontrunner, Donald Trump said he wants to sue news outlets if they negative stories about him.

He acknowledged that currently the First Amendment of the Constitution protects a free press, and thus shields journalists from suits like this.

But Trump said on Friday that he would limit the press using litigation that would be permitted due to “opening up” libel laws and allowing them to include things like criticism and critiques that he doesn’t like.

“I think the media is among the most dishonest groups of people I’ve ever met,” Trump stated. “They’re terrible.”

So Trump promised to change things through legislating what he considers “honest reporting.”

“One of the things I’m gonna do, and this is only gonna make it tougher for me, and I’ve never said this before, but one of the things I’m gonna do if I win… is I’m gonna 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 gonna open up those libel laws.”

He went even further and made it clear what he meant, saying, “We’re gonna open up those libel laws, folks, and we’re gonna have people sue you like you never get sued before.”

See if for yourself in the video clip below…

(Article by M. David;

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 48.

#1. To: Deckard (#0)

The 1st Amendment (written to restrict Congressional legislation only) didn't created a preferred class for purposes of libel and slander. The New York Times has no greater 1st Amendment rights in that regard than Joe Sixpack.

Try actually reading it someday.

Roscoe  posted on  2016-02-27   11:54:04 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Roscoe (#1)

"The 1st Amendment (written to restrict Congressional legislation only) didn't created a preferred class for purposes of libel and slander."

Sure it did. It clearly says that the press can write lies about you if you're a public figure. The U.S. Supreme Court found it hiding in a penumbra.

I'm with Trump on this one. Get rid of the "public figure" exemption and hold the press responsible for negligent behavior. All other countries do it.

And, prior to 1967, so did the United States.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-02-27   12:21:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: misterwhite (#4)

Get rid of the "public figure" exemption

Cruz and Rubio would wind up penniless from their libels and slanders in this campaign alone.

Roscoe  posted on  2016-02-27   12:28:14 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Roscoe, misterwhite (#6)

The funny thing is that you two partisan puppets would be against this had it been proposed by Hillary.

Deckard  posted on  2016-02-27   12:41:22 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: Deckard (#7)

"had it been proposed by Hillary."

Hillary would never propose a return to constitutional law.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-02-27   13:23:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: misterwhite (#11) (Edited)

Hillary would never propose a return to constitutional law.

Trump suing the press for criticizing his hair is "constitutional"?

What country do you currently reside in comrade?

I'll bet you two clowns love Feinstein.

Feinstein wants to limit who can be a journalist

Deckard  posted on  2016-02-27   13:34:48 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: Deckard (#14)

"Trump suing the press for criticizing his hair is "constitutional"?

Is that whhat he said? Let me check. No. He didn't say that. There's a transcript (AND a video if you cant read):

He said, "... but one of the things I’m gonna do if I win… is I’m gonna 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."

That's the way it was in our country for 200 years. An activist court in 1967 changed that by excluding "public figures" from protection against libel and slander.

Does freedom of the press include them intentionally telling lies about someone -- to promote some hidden agenda -- without facing any consequences for their action?

misterwhite  posted on  2016-02-27   13:47:03 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: misterwhite (#20) (Edited)

but one of the things I’m gonna do if I win… is I’m gonna 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."

And here I thought misterwhite was opposed to frivolous lawsuits.

You Trump cultists are the Bush Bots of the new milenium.

Does freedom of the press include them intentionally telling lies about someone -- to promote some hidden agenda.

Maybe you should ask Hannity, O'Reilly, Kelley and Limbaugh.

As far as I know, there is no "fair and balanced" clause in the First amendment.

Deckard  posted on  2016-02-27   13:55:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: Deckard (#25)

"And here I thought misterwhite was opposed to frivolous lawsuits."

I expect the truth from any organization given special protection under the first amendment. The first amendment exists in order to protect the dissemination of the truth to the public.

I don't see the benefit in protecting the ability of news organizations to tell me lies. I think if a protected news organization intentionally tells me lies they should be held responsible under our civil tort laws.

The second amendment protects your right to keep and bear arms. Does that mean you can use those arms to violate the law?

misterwhite  posted on  2016-02-27   14:05:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: misterwhite (#32)

The second amendment protects your right to keep and bear arms.

By Deckard's "reasoning", establishment insiders should have a greater right to keep and bear arms than the rest of us.

Roscoe  posted on  2016-02-27   14:09:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#47. To: Roscoe (#36)

"By Deckard's "reasoning", establishment insiders should have a greater right to keep and bear arms than the rest of us."

They way I read him, establishment insiders (EI) would have the same right to keep and bear arms as the rest of us.

BUT, the EI could use those arms any way they wanted without repercussion. They can shoot people, rob stores, whatever -- all the while hiding behind their special EI license to own guns.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-02-27   14:19:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: misterwhite (#47)

They way I read him, establishment insiders (EI) would have the same right to keep and bear arms as the rest of us.

BUT, the EI could use those arms any way they wanted without repercussion. They can shoot people, rob stores, whatever -- all the while hiding behind their special EI license to own guns.

Yeah, that's about right. The Übermensch could shoot the Juden, but the Juden couldn't shoot back. Heil, Deckard!

Roscoe  posted on  2016-02-27   14:22:24 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 48.

        There are no replies to Comment # 48.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 48.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com