Vanity: With Trump libel laws, Free Republic would be sued out of existence on day one. (Discussion)

2/26/16 | Self

[WildHighlander57]

Thanks, 9yearlurker for finding this:

http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/26/media/donald-trump-libel-laws/

Article says Scalia didn’t like the ruling

“...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. ...”

[ilgipper]

But it’s okay, because Trump! The savior will make everything great.

[Chgogal]

Define libel?

[dead]

You Trump people are such children. This anti-freedom proposal of Trumps would stifle political dissent in this country. Political satire would be unpublishable. Its a fascist idea intended to protect Trump from facing annoyance from the unpowerful and unyuge. But you make dumb jokes.

[mlizzy]

[It's not like the Donald hasn't given us plenty of warning, yet, his supporters keep lining up, feeding him with votes!]

The GOP frontrunner has become synonymous with Islamophobia, but mere months ago he criticized a prominent anti-Islam activist for antagonizing Muslims.

“It looks like she’s just taunting everybody. What is she doing?” he told Fox & Friends. “Drawing Mohammed and it looks like she’s actually taunting people. You know, I’m one that believes in free speech, probably more than she does. But what’s the purpose of this?”

And now as Trump openly attempts to restrict the rights of Muslims, Geller holds a grudge and remains unconvinced of his anti-Islamic credentials.

“Trump denounced our free-speech event,” Geller told The Daily Beast. “For all his braggadocio about opposing jihad and stopping Muslim immigration, he appears to have no understanding of the necessity of standing up to efforts to bully us into silence and to force us at gunpoint to accept Sharia restrictions on the freedom of speech...”

[B]ecause she cannot endorse a candidate who “doesn’t understand the importance of the freedom of speech,” Geller said she supports Ted Cruz.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/12/08/when-donald-trump-accused-pamela-geller-of-taunting-muslims.html

[eastexsteve]

The truth is always an affirmative defense to defamation. I agree with being able to hold media accountable for wrongful and damaging speech. It’s about time. Why should they be immune from laws that private citizens have to abide by?

[X-spurt]

Only a matter of time until the Trumpbots turn on FR and its deemed as some anti-American site like every other conservative group or intellectual or radio host.

[Johnny B.]

Excellent point!

Remember, Trump has already tried to shut down free speech when he sent Cruz a Cease & Desist order for using a video of Trump talking about abortion.

In Trump's world, the government should prevent people from even hearing him, in his own words, whenever he doesn't like it.

Trump is, at heart, a facist.

[Johnny B.]

I’m gonna open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles

Except, Trump would stop them from writing purposely negative and horrible and true stories about him. Just as he did when he threatened legal action against Cruz for using a video of Trump saying something that Trump would rather you not hear.

[Pravious]

“Originally it was full articles posted so there would be a record and no question about content distortion or context.

That was clearly, to me, legal under fair use.”

Posting full articles is not legal, under fair use.

[Cboldt]

Carol Burnett, IIRC.

[Rusty0604]

I forgot about that, thanks for the reminder.

[mlizzy]

Yes, exactly right, because the true stories are negative to him. These are perilous times for our nation. When a conservative like Ted Cruz is running, why pick a controlling personality like Trump?

[StAnDeliver]

What part of "It's the seriousness of the charge" should be supported? Did both Clintons get away with libel & slander against Lewinsky, et al? Do you think Sullivan should stay exactly the broken way it is?

[9YearLurker]

Quite a leap to assume that because they agreed on what the article pointed out was Scalia’s position that I was suggesting Scalia would have agreed on some not-yet-specific proposed legislation.

But generally conservative SCJs believe Congress should address and counter bad SC rulings.

[ctdonath2]

Libel is legitimately actionable.

[Lorianne]

I think you have a good point.

Libel laws in the UK are much more strict and they inhibit free speech IMO.

Even under current laws a person can be sued into silence unless they have lots of money. Look at what is happening to Mark Steyn.

[Clay Moore]

That he would say this while in Fort Worth, home of the Fort Worth “Red” Star Telegram is hilarious. This paper is so far left they have (had) a red star on the masthead in salute to the Soviet Union!

[OrangeHoof]

I would not depict the New York Times, L.A. Times, Washington Post, etc. as “rich”. They’re all swimming in debt and are circling the drain.

[Balding_Eagle]

Specifically, what is the proposed liable law?