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:16945 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 .
Actually the example I gave doesn't apply because he did not sue the press. However the press gets sued often ,and although the Sullivan standards are a higher threshold ,that doesn't mean they are immune from a suit . They still have to count on a judge ,and still have to spend the $$ in their defense . And they sometimes lose.
Influential people in federal, state and local government and those in the "star" category of cultural trend-setter have been filing a fair proportion of libel cases against the print and broadcast media in recent years, according to the study. But the more influential they were, the less often they won. Those with the most visible public personalities won just 29 of the 131 suits they took to court.
The implications of that record are obvious to the study's authors, University of Minnesota journalism professor Donald M. Gillmor and San Francisco lawyer Melanie C. Grant. They want to close the courthouse door to libel lawsuits by those who achieve public prominence as policymakers or stars.
Gillmor and Grant propose that "public officials at policymaking levels and celebrities," dependent upon the media for their fame and fortune, "shall have no remedy in libel law." The authors do want the media to give something in return: They should stand ready to open their news columns or air time for replies by influential people whom they wrong as a voluntary rather than a legally compelled remedy.
While their proposed solution is hardly likely to become law, the Gillmor-Grant study is worth a second look. For some years now, similar proposals have been bandied about by legal scholars and judges, with little behind the discussion but raw theory. Now, with a wealth of statistics from 614 libel cases against the media between 1982 and 1988, Gillmor and Grant have provided a firm scholarly basis for what seems a compelling conclusion: Since the high-profile libel suit is demonstrably a failure, it can no longer claim to have social value or purpose.
The Gillmor-Grant study is, at its core, a tough reminder that the American press did not get what it thought it was getting in 1964, when the U. S. Supreme Court decided the case of New York Times v. Sullivan . The ruling, which put libel law under the restraints of the First Amendment for the first time, supposedly built a constitutional bulwark against libel lawsuits by public officials and celebrities.
It has been easy enough to make the argument, in theory, that the Sullivan decision was very good for the press, because it opened the way for more rigorous, even aggressive, coverage of public affairs. It is alien to American political theory to permit those with power to try to silence the press when it gets too tough or too close in monitoring the powerful.
And, one could easily extend the theory to suggest that libel as a legal option ought to be reserved for those who have no influence in society. They often are unable to generate publicity to counter harmful stories and, besides, they rarely become targets of aggressive press attention.
The press has been relying on the Sullivan theory, and thus has been able to tell itself, over and over again, that its constitutional shield was sturdy indeed. But high-profile individuals apparently did not get it: They kept suing and suing and suing. The fact that they didn't win much (and everybody believed that as a matter of faith, even before the Gillmor-Grant data became available) provided little comfort. The press may have walked away from many of those legal bouts without paying megabuck verdicts, but its wallet was a lot thinner after paying the legal bills to gain those victories.
It fell on deaf ears among many members of the press when a critic of Sullivan noted that the decision did not keep the powerful from suing; it simply set down the rules that, with increasing complexity, made libel lawsuits costlier.
Now come Gillmor and Grant to deflate the myth of Sullivan 's promise of deliverance from the devil of libel. A form of litigation with such a low success rate, they show, is a futile exercise.
But what can the press do about that? It has just two options; neither is at all promising. It can go to the Supreme Court in the next libel case and try to persuade the justices to extend Sullivan to implement the ban suggested by Gillmor and Grant. Or it can troop to every state legislature (and perhaps Congress as well) and ask lawmakers to eliminate their right to sue the press for libel.
The first option is as foolhardy as the second. The current Supreme Court appears to be bent on retreating from Sullivan , not expanding its scope. The press doesn't know what it would get if the court began to tinker with Sullivan .
It hardly needs saying that the second option is a dream world proposition. Every harried politician in the country knows that a libel lawsuit is a good publicity gimmick, even when it fails.
The Gillmor-Grant study might yet be put to use, however: Press lawyers could cite it as they try to get celebrities to settle out of court. l
