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:16661 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.”
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 .
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 .
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 .
"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?
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 .
