Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ConservativeTeen

“What a Constitutionalist.”
__________________________________

Cuz libel should be legal?

Got it.


2 posted on 02/26/2016 12:42:51 PM PST by ConservativeWarrior (Fall down 7 times, stand up 8. - Japanese proverb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: ConservativeWarrior

Because the government should have as little control over the media as possible.


4 posted on 02/26/2016 12:43:36 PM PST by TBP (0bama lies, Granny dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: ConservativeWarrior

No, cuz it’s a matter of statute, either state or federal, or case law, NOT a matter for POTUS. It’s another ignorant, egotistical, “I’m the only guy who can do it” statement that makes him look like a clown.


11 posted on 02/26/2016 12:45:28 PM PST by jagusafr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: ConservativeWarrior
Any negative statement will be greeted with litigation. Any. How long will the media be free to disagree with The Great and Wonderful Trump?

Or is a State run media okay because your guy wants to beat them into unwilling parrots with squadrons of lawyers?

Better healthy dissent! At least you are free to disagree with the news reports, as we have for the last 40-50 years.

16 posted on 02/26/2016 12:46:51 PM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: ConservativeWarrior

Proving libel for a public figure is much more difficult than proving it for a non-public figure. You have to prove actual malice for a public figure.


17 posted on 02/26/2016 12:46:56 PM PST by ConservativeTeen (Really a Conservative 30-something)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: ConservativeWarrior

What about “open up” do you not understand?


22 posted on 02/26/2016 12:49:06 PM PST by dinoparty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: ConservativeWarrior

I am sorry but I like my First Amendment the way it is.


30 posted on 02/26/2016 12:52:36 PM PST by Bubba_Leroy (The Obamanation Continues)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: ConservativeWarrior
Cuz libel should be legal?

Libel is already illegal. This is just Trump letting his fascist side out for a little air, threatening to use the law to punish anyone who criticizes him - because according to him and his supporters, anything negative about Trump has to be false and misleading by definition!

33 posted on 02/26/2016 12:54:30 PM PST by CA Conservative (Texan by birth, Californian by circumstance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: ConservativeWarrior
Cuz libel should be legal?

"Negative" and "horrible" does not = libel.

Not that I would expect Trump to grasp the difference.

38 posted on 02/26/2016 12:56:47 PM PST by gdani ("Nobody reads the Bible more than me" - Donald Trump <<<<BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: ConservativeWarrior

So you don’t like free speech. Are you opposed to the 2nd amendment too?


50 posted on 02/26/2016 1:01:14 PM PST by Buck-I-Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: ConservativeWarrior

Libel is already agasint the law. Guess they did not that at Trump Univ.

But Negative statements are not only legal the are enshrined by the founding fathers. In the Deceleration of Independence

How many of these statements below would be “trumpian libel”

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.


68 posted on 02/26/2016 1:06:15 PM PST by Bidimus1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: ConservativeWarrior
Got it.

You don't got it. Political speech and press freedom are protected in the Constitution. The fact that your man doesn't like them isn't material.

77 posted on 02/26/2016 1:09:06 PM PST by Poison Pill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: ConservativeWarrior

It is bizarre the same Trumpster Freepers who supported SCOTUS in Citizens United, who opposed McCain Feingold, who were offended by Jeb Bush when he suggested a Constitutional Convention to overturn the SCOTUS on CU, fully support Trump’s desire to overturn New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.

It is bizarre. It is not conservative, at least not in the Ronald Reagan sense.


107 posted on 02/26/2016 1:20:40 PM PST by magellan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson