Here's your new recreation room. Please let me introduce Elhombre, Reaganite, Libby and Cincy? You've all got so much in common:
Posted on 02/27/2016 3:42:54 AM PST by ifinnegan
Thanks for your very thoughtful response. But you did not answer the question.
Here's your new recreation room. Please let me introduce Elhombre, Reaganite, Libby and Cincy? You've all got so much in common:
There’s a name for you.
Disrupters.
I believe he said something today about the exception for public figures. Or else someone else said it—can’t remember.
Our First Amendment gives us more leeway to criticize than people have in other countries, where there is no First Amendment. When books are being published in both the US and England, the publisher has to be much more careful. For anything like a bestseller, we basically follow England’s libel laws.
Newspapers carry a very expensive legal staff, usually. Someone famous actually won a suit against the Enquirer, however. Can’t remember who it was.
I’d like to see the Federalist Society debate this, if it ever gathers enough steam to make it worthwhile for them.
How is someone’s poorly laid out vain opinion Front Page News?
Something needs to be done about media bias and lying. Under the current law, a person needs to prove that a falsehood is published maliciously with knowledge that it is false in order to trigger damages. This is extremely difficult to prove in court even when it is obvious to see.
Like everything dominated by the left, the media is perverted and has become an enemy of the people. I don’t have the answer on how to fix this problem, but we need to start the discussion.
You realize Canada is a different & sovereign county, right?
Not quite
—
Since 1964, when the Supreme Court ruled on “New York Times vs. Sullivan,” public individuals who wish to sue media companies for libel are required to prove that the news organization knowingly published false information with malicious intent.
The late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said in 2012 that he “abhors” the ruling, saying it gives news organizations the freedom to “libel public figures at will so long as somebody told you something.”
—
Quite a leap to say Scalia would support a federal libel law.
What “laws”?
Scroll down the responses above for your answer.
What libel law proposals?
And how does the fuzzy line of copyright infringement have anything to do with it?
Why do you think it is nonsense?
You think if give the opportunity that liberals would not sue conservative sites in to bankruptcy?
Your hysteria says a lot.
Lawsuits have always been part of the Trump business model and he had a huge reputation for this in and around NYC.
His game has been to tie other businesses up in hugely expensive litigation whenever he didn’t get his way and eventually bankrupt them.
I agree with you.
It is hard.
I think we have seen the answer. The answer is in fact one of the things that has driven the Trump phenomena, which is ironic.
The answer is the alternate conservative media. Like this site and others.
Thanks! The article at the link is very informative. It sure makes it clear that Scalia would have aligned with Trump on the need for federal libel laws.
..................................
‘No federal libel law currently exists, because libel suits are handled in state courts.
Since 1964, when the Supreme Court ruled on “New York Times vs. Sullivan,” public individuals who wish to sue media companies for libel are required to prove that the news organization knowingly published false information with malicious intent.
The late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said in 2012 that he “abhors” the ruling, saying it gives news organizations the freedom to “libel public figures at will so long as somebody told you something.” ‘
He only expressed his frustration. Sullivan v. NYT is not being overturned by a President. Relax.
“But the Trump folks decided to capitulate and turn their backs on their principles.”
Assuming the Trumpeters had any (conservative) principles to begin with, which is seeming more and more unlikely.
They do not seem to care that their Hero’s policies, for the most part, have no daylight between them and Hillary’s policies, and despite their Hero saying he can change position at a moment’s notice, fail to imagine what he will morph into next - they just do not seem to care. How in the debates their Hero, if nominated, is going to find some substantive difference to debate Hillary is an exercise in magical thinking - which their Hero is very practiced at doing and seems to have gathered a critical mass of like-minded supporters.
I’m beginning to see why some erstwhile Republicans are saying in a contest between DJT and Hillary, they will vote for Hillary - I suppose on the premise that the devil you know is better than the one you do not.
Emotional responses and ad hominem attacks are their two proven lines of defense. Like their cohorts on the liberal side of things, facts either do not matter, or are nefarious plots to bring down the Heroic Stance of their Ubermensch.
Look at this post! Trump simply saying something has many of you freaking out. Too funny!!!!
During a Friday rally in Texas, Trump launched into a monologue about how he felt that the media was treating him unfairly, alleging that the New York Times and Washington Post, in particular, were not covering him well.
“The New York Times, which is losing a fortune, which is a failing newspaper, which probably won’t be around much longer … but I think the New York Times is one of the most dishonest media outlets I’ve ever seen in my life,” the businessman said. “They have an agenda that you wouldn’t believe.”
“If I become president, oh, do they have problems. They’re gonna have such problems,” Trump said.
He added:
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.
So that when the New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace, or when the Washington Post … writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money, instead of having no chance of winning because they’re totally protected.
Trump continued his speech, threatening to roll back the media’s First Amendment protections in the Constitution.
“With me, they’re not protected, because I’m not like other people… We’re gonna open up those libel laws, folks, and we’re gonna have people sue you like you never got sued before,” he said.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.