NOT.
Posted on 02/29/2016 6:58:09 AM PST by LouD
Possibly.
NOT.
It would be nice to have an unbiased media that actually loved America and reported fairly and honestly when it came to political news.
I just don’t agree with State Enforcement to do it or the threat of legal action . And with more media and info than when I was a kid, it would be a bureaucratic and judicial nightmare.
The “state level” is the level it should be enforced at & Trump knows this. Trump was not endorsing passinf legislation at the “State/federal” level. If you had bothered to listen carefully to what Trump says, not just one event speech, but listen to many as there is only so much time in any given event, what Trump wants to do is restore the way it was BEFORE the SCOTUS stepped in where it ought not have. Libel is not to be litigated in federal courts, it is a “state” issue!!!
You said...
“The “state level” is the level it should be enforced at & Trump knows this. Trump was not endorsing passinf legislation at the “State/federal” level. If you had bothered to listen carefully to what Trump says, not just one event speech, but listen to many as there is only so much time in any given event, what Trump wants to do is restore the way it was BEFORE the SCOTUS stepped in where it ought not have. Libel is not to be litigated in federal courts, it is a “state” issue!!!”
Ok, so you’re ok with the courts enforcing a responsible press?
Had Hillary said the exact same thing Trump said, you’d be opposing this. This seems to be the case with alot of Trump’s statements and position according to his supporters. Put them in Hillary’s mouth and they become bad
This isn’t about libel. This is about politicians suing any publication they “believe” libeled them. And using that to shut down and intimidate opposition. Your position is, “well, if what they printed is true about said politician they’ll win.” But who wants to fight the resources of the government.Let’s say a President Trump reads something in the NYT that he doesn’t believe is true? This is how a politician can use opening up libel laws to intimidate. Which BTW, is what Trump is doing. And I heard what he said. It was an attempt to intimidate
Read the link about what happened to “Free Dominion” and decide if this is a good idea. And pretend Harry Reid said what Trump did and how you’d feel
We better agree to disagree on this. I will no longer respond to you on this topic, you paraphrase and twist my words and meanings and think that is rebuttal. Be well.
Were did Trump say that libel laws should be a state issue and not a federal one?
Plus aren’t libel laws contested in state courts already?
I am for the courts UPHOLDING the law. What part of this do you not understand?
Not just a reply to you.....
But, I will bet anyone here..or here in my state...Trump will not build a wall. It’s not going to happen. It’s a lie..to get him..to where he wants to go. Period.
Trump will not keep Muslims out of this country..and anyone that thinks that...is no different than the voters that elected Obama...on Hope and Change.
I was just afraid for my country for many months...I am now very fearful for the future.
Most people..and I’m afraid...that many Freeper’s are not critical thinker’s anymore...But, soundbite fish. Fish that get hooked.
I am now more than ever concerned about me and mine...Not about you. My country has abandoned me...My family going back generations has worked..been very successful...paid their dues. But none of that seems to matter anymore....
Now..it’s my family and close friends only.
Nothing matters anymore politically to me...there are no critical thinker’s...there is no reason in politics.
This is Trump in his own words..
One of the things I’m going to do if I win... I’m going to 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,” Trump said during a rally in Fort Worth, Texas.
“We’re going to open up those libel laws so when The New York Times writes a hit piece, which is a total disgrace, or when the Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they’re totally protected,” he said. “We’re going to open up libel laws and we’re going to have people sue you like you’ve never got sued before.”
Sounds to me like he wants to federalize libel laws. Whose the “we” that’s gonna sue? Whose the people that are going to do the suing.
Folks, this guy’s a tyrant in waiting!!! His praise for Kim Jong Un, the Chinese government in Tienanmen(sp) Square, Putin, his over reaction to any criticism. He wants to grow the size of the Federal government and will go around the Constitution to achieve that goal.And many here will cheer it on. It’s clear by his statements and it’s too bad most can’t see past this supposed wall he’s going to build. Again, if his supporters were shown all his past and present positions and statements and didn’t know who said them or you told them Hillary made them, I guarantee they would oppose 90% of them. I pray that I’m wrong. But I fear I’m not.
And I blame the DNC, RNC, big business, the media for creating him.
You said..
“I am for the courts UPHOLDING the law. What part of this do you not understand?’
The law is already there. It seems that Trump wants to make libel a federal issue. I’ve heard and read his own words. It’s definitely a veiled threat that you would be upset about had Obama done it
I’m saddened that there are actually people here who want Tyranny.
Well, as long as it’s “their” tyranny that makes it all right. Free speech isn’t there to just protect polite speech. All speech.
Again, no one is defending libel.It’s already illegal to libel someone knowingly. Trump’s statement about opening up libel laws was a threat. And as much as I hate the media, I understand the ramifications of what Trump is doing here. Someday, a democrat candidate will say the same things about talk radio and the cheers you here now won’t be anywhere to find
The SCOTUS, in the Sullivan case, basically rewrote what “libel” means. Trump wishes to change it back to the original meaning it had when the Constitution & the 1st Amendment were ratified.
What Trump is doing is crying for his “safe space” lol
A thin skinned megalomaniac who has expressed admiration for the brutality of dictators should be no were near the WH
Not how I see it. You are being disingenuous for the chance to attack Trump.
Well, if you had been listening to his campaign speeches, instead of relying wholly on misinterps of the 5th column, you wouldn’t have to ask that now would you. But because people do not want to take the time to actually listen to Trump in context, they will believe anything the 5th column prints, whether it is true or not.
You said...
“The SCOTUS, in the Sullivan case, basically rewrote what “libel” means. Trump wishes to change it back to the original meaning it had when the Constitution & the 1st Amendment were ratified.”
Wrong!!
Read his own words. He’s threatening them. My God. Trumpers won’t even believe when you show them his own words.
He did not say that it should stay in the states. Don’t mold him into what you think he will do. I see nothing were he has said Libel laws should remain state issues.
You would be on my side had Hillary said the exact same thing. The difference is I’m consistent.
Fine.
Show me were Trump said libel laws should remain a state issue in state courts
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.