[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: 14344
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 # 67.

#16. To: Deckard (#0) (Edited)

of course ,suing people is what Trump does best .Trump isn't talking about facts .He's talking about his bruised ego . Who defines what is 'horrible and purposely negative ' ? I just have to wonder how many times he would've been sued had his proposals been the law of the land ?

Gutting the 1st amendment so public leaders can silence critics is totalitarianism in my book. I've got news for Trump . The 1st campaigns in this country were far more vicious when it came to the lies and slanders . The nation survived . Take his proposal now and put the power in the hands of Evita or Bolshevik Bernie. Not so attractive is it ? I'm probably on my way to the frog march ,and if not me ,any conservative outlet that opposes them .Evita thinks they are all in a conspiracy against her. But I have to give him credit . He has most of the US media wrapped around his fingers . He claims his campaign is self financed ;but he should be giving a big hat tip to the press in this country who cower at the idea that he would cut off their access. The free promotion has been worth $$$$$$$ millions .

tomder55  posted on  2016-02-27   13:36:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: tomder55 (#16)

Gutting the 1st amendment so public leaders can silence critics is totalitarianism in my book.

Seems that there are some here who disagree.

The cult of Trump is scary. His followers would give up their liberty for him.

Deckard  posted on  2016-02-27   13:44:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#49. To: Deckard (#18)

Gutting the 1st amendment so public leaders can silence critics is totalitarianism in my book.

Seems that there are some here who disagree.

The cult of Trump is scary. His followers would give up their liberty for him

The good news is POTUS doesn't write laws . If Trump ever read a copy of the Constitution he would know that .

tomder55  posted on  2016-02-27   14:26:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: tomder55 (#49)

The good news is POTUS doesn't write laws .

Federal judges do that.

Roscoe  posted on  2016-02-27   14:33:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#51. To: Roscoe (#50) (Edited)

The good news is POTUS doesn't write laws .

Federal judges do that.

The court decided that public figures needed to prove that there was a falsehood ,and that the press knew it was false.

In this case there is no Federal libel laws. There are state laws. So when Her Donald proposes "opening up " libel laws what he means is that he wants to amend the 1st amendment .

tomder55  posted on  2016-02-27   14:42:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#61. To: tomder55 (#51)

"The court decided that public figures needed to prove that there was a falsehood ,and that the press knew it was false."

Why the higher standard? Prior to 1967 the same standard applied to public or private figures.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-02-27   18:35:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#63. To: misterwhite (#61)

Why the higher standard? Prior to 1967 the same standard applied to public or private figures.

I can give you Justice William Brennan's reasoning in his majority He placed the legal issues in the context of "a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." Brennan maintained that erroneous statements are inevitable in free debate and must be protected if freedom of expression is to have the "breathing space" it needs to survive.

In the decision Brennan did not go as far as Justices Hugo Black and William Douglas would've liked. The voted in favor of the opinion ,but would've made it impossible for a public figure to win a liable case. They concluded that the First Amendment provided an absolute Immunity for criticism of the way public officials do their public duty.

This was not a divided court on this case. There was a 9-0 majority .

tomder55  posted on  2016-02-27   20:30:09 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#66. To: tomder55 (#63)

"a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials."

I read that statement and I agree.

"erroneous statements are inevitable in free debate and must be protected if freedom of expression is to have the "breathing space" it needs to survive."

I read that and agree with it also.

So, where do intentional lies (not errors) about a candidate fit into that? Isn't a lie about a candidate contrary to the principle of an honest debate? Are you better off if the New York Times gives you no information or misinformation?

And if "debate on public issues" is the reason, then why does the law extend to actors, sports figures, TV personalities, and other public figures?

misterwhite  posted on  2016-02-28   10:55:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#67. To: misterwhite (#66)

Celebrities use the courts to fight defamation all the time. Sometimes they win and sometimes they lose. Just recently Jesse Ventura won a $1.8 million defamation lawsuit against the estate of Chris Kyle .

tomder55  posted on  2016-02-28   11:09:45 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 67.

        There are no replies to Comment # 67.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 67.

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