Replies

so what you are asking is that the fact that there is nothing there ever stop the left wing media from making up lies and publishing them as if they were proven facts.

We have to change how this works.

If the media publishes lies as facts and they are found to be totally they need to get hit with a one million dollar fine for each and every time they published those lies.

We should have freedom of speech but not freedom to lie day after day and story after story.

We have to change how this works.

I would quibble only in saying we need to change how it works back to the traditional standard. In the Common Law that forms the basis for our laws, and still in force in England, the standard for winning a libel suit had two factors:
1) The claim had to be false, and
2) There had to be harm done.

Somewhere along the line in the US, the standard got changed by lawyers and judges (who wanted to curry favor with 'the press'). Now, in order to win a libel suit you need to prove a thought crime: that the so-called journalist had active 'malice' toward the target of the article.

The equivalent for gun crimes would be to say it's okay for me to fire a gun down a busy street, regardless of who I might harm or how bad, as long as I didn't actively hate anyone who got hurt. That's obscene.

I do disagree with you on one item of substance. I don't think there should be a 'fine' (a penalty imposed by government). I don't trust government to be objective and fair on whether harm has been done, etc. Instead, I think we should return to the appropriate, traditional standard for libel lawsuits. Let a jury (which is to say, "We, the People" instead of government) determine whether harm has been done.

One other key point in the traditional standard. The harmed party does not need to prove that the accusation or claim was false. The party being sued has to prove that what they said was true. So the only defense against a lawsuit that harm was done is that the statement that caused the harm was true. (The party being sued can still claim no harm was done, and the burden of proof of harm remains with the plaintiff.)

There is - as always - a loophole. Even in English law (Common Law),if an accusation is made in the form of a question there is no grounds for a libel claim. (Example: "If Trump colluded with Russia, shouldn't he be removed from office?") But at least, if the fake news loudmouths had to phrase their claims as questions, it wouldn't be as convincing to the low-information voters as it is now.

“If the media publishes lies as facts and they are found to be totally they need to get hit with a one million dollar fine for each and every time they published those lies.”

So, you would put government in charge of determining truth?

You do not support the 1st Amendment as you claim.