Donald Trump: We're going to 'open up' libel laws

Politico ^ | 2/26/2016 | Hadas Gold

[dschapin]

Donald Trump said on Friday he plans to change libel laws in the United States so that he can have an easier time suing news organizations.

During a rally in Fort Worth, Texas, Trump began his usual tirade against newspapers such as The New York Times and The Washington Post, saying they're "losing money" and are "dishonest." The Republican presidential candidate then took a different turn, suggesting that when he's president they'll "have problems."

"One of the things I'm going to do if I win, and I hope we do and we're certainly leading. 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. 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," Trump said.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/02/donald-trump-libel-laws-219866#ixzz41OOQy1Ch

[FreedomStar3028]

All power can be abused.

It’s a viciously cyclical argument.

[Las Vegas Ron]

Probably more than you cared to read lol...

Not at all, you have good points and I enjoy reading them.

You mentioned Joe the Plumber and George Zimmerman, what happened to them was completely wrong and the fact they had no recourse is troublesome.

I don't have the answer on how to fix it, anything I would come up with would be ripe for abuse like most laws are.

I also remember Richard Jewell, he was destroyed by the media to the point he ended up committing suicide....and IIRC he won a slander case against them before he did the deed so even winning monetary compensation is not a fix for the damage done...in his case at least.

[Darksheare]

Why even give the opportunity for abuse?
That’s beyond stupid and into “willfull collaboration” territory.

[dschapin]

Lol, I was talking about Trump supporters killing the Republican Party and our Freedoms by electing a despot. I clearly was not saying that Trump Supporters want to kill people. Please read more carefully.

[LMAO]

So what will be your reaction if a president Hillary decides to “open up” libel laws?

My God. The same things Trump has been saying would get howls of outrage from Trumpers if Hillary said the same things.

Like another smart freeper once said, “they’ve sold their souls for the promise of a wall”

[Las Vegas Ron]

was suggesting a "common sense" litmus test as a prerequisite to our freedom to vote.

The Founding Fathers did...you had to be a property owner.

Getting to the rest of your post, I realize political free speech is the purpose of the 1st Amendment, and I back it as fiercely as I do the rest of the BOR.

I'm running out of time as I have some chores to get to but in this case I'll say this is Trump sloganeering just like Cruz does with saying he is going to abolish the IRS.....congress will vote that in right after term limits and I win the Powerball lottery.

My entire point with posters who claimed Libel and slander are protected 1st amendment rights, that is simply not true.

[21twelve]

Sorry - words like “Kill” sort of jump out at the page at me. A form of “microaggression” at the very least. Let’s hope the Secret Service has better proof readers!

[Angels27]

Is he going to open up slander laws? Probably not. Slandering his oponents is how Trump has thrived in the primaries.

[VideoDoctor]

The media is damaging society because they have no accountability.

The CORE ISSUE in a sentence. Thank You!

[FreedomStar3028]

To do what?

There is an undeniable problem with the MSM and how they operate.

[Darksheare]

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3116989/posts
“Conservative website shuttered after libel ruling [Free Dominion]”
http://freerepublic.com/tag/freedominion/index?tab=articles

It can, has, and will be used to silence conservatives.
Just like what happened to our Canadian sister site.

[Springfield Reformer]

The media should be held accountable when causing lives to be ruined by their lies and slander.

I’d say what the MSM does today is suppress free speech from anyone that isn’t on the left.

The media can already be held accountable for provable lies, under the "actual malice" standard for public figures. But it requires a showing of truth, not opinion. There has to be a smoking gun that shows the media outlet knew it was stating a falsehood. And it has to be some factual assertion, not just a difference of opinion.  

For example, if some media outlet said Trump gave Planned Parenthood some specific amount of money, at a specific time, and inside the media outlet there's an email chain that makes it clear they made it all up and knew it was false, Trump could win on that one, if he could get the evidence. He doesn't need to change the law at all.

But if someone comes along and says, "Trump supports planned parenthood," and then supports that statement with some combination of true facts and personal opinion, Trump has no defense against that.  He cannot come back and say, "I don't feel that way anymore, therefore I can sue you for lots of money."  That would end up with nothing but a long string of suits that eventually would make everybody scared to criticize the strongman, even with truth. Being sued is a painful, costly process, even when you're in the right. So Trump has no case in that scenario. Thank God.

So no, the defamation law is fine, just the way it is. My advice to Donald is this: If you get into politics, you need to put your big boy pants on and be prepared to have lots of unpleasant things said about it. It's the nature of the beast.  It's ugly sometimes, but it beats the alternative.

Peace,

SR

[Las Vegas Ron]

Real quick as I have some chores to get to.

I read the Canada case and thank God that is in Canada....for now.

It goes to show that any law can be perverted if you can get the right court or jury to go along with it, maybe that is what we should be focused on fixing if it can be.

Thing is, it’s just one of a zillion problems this country has evolved into, it’s going to take a long time to get it turned back.

We have to start somewhere, Cruz doesn’t for now look like an option, no way I will support the sure destruction with amnesty Rube, I’m stuck with Trump...cautiously optimistic he’ll make some head way.

[Blackirish]

Yes this is another example of the Trump Fanboy’s cult of personality surrounding this man. Could you imagine the reverse rage they’d have if Rubio or Cruz suggested this?

[Las Vegas Ron]

Meant to also say thanks for the links....some good stuff to study later.

[LMAO]

You said...
“There is an undeniable problem with the MSM and how they operate.”

No one here will disagree with that.
And, happily, the public agrees as reflected in declining trust and viewership and readership. And they do not have a right to libel. We’re not arguing that

But a politician running for office and making a statement like Donald has sends up red flags. Keep in mind, should he be elected and get his way, what happens when a Democrat becomes president eventually and decides to use the Donald Law to intimidate conservative publications? This is what happened with the “Fairness Doctrine” and why Reagan was right to get rid of it.

It may sound good right now. But Donald won’t be president forever

[dschapin]

I agree, they would have been screaming tyranny if anyone else had proposed this.

[Luircin]

And if Cruz had proposed this, you’d be all in favor of it.

[katana]

And how would you react if this idea was floated by Obama, Clinton, Reid, or Pelosi? See, the problem with changing a law to benefit someone you trust is it's also changed for someone you can't trust. Denying someone the freedom to call Trump a new Mussolini (an opinion, by the way, that I don't share. He reminds me much more of Juan Peron) means the freedom to call Hillary Clinton a criminal psychotic power hungry neo-Stalinist ugly shrew would also be subject to legal sanction. Any speculation about Harry Reid's ties to organized crime would be libelous. And mention Obama's frolics in Chicago bathhouses? Forget it.

To paraphrase the old saying about God and killing in combat, allow it all to be said and let the listeners sort it out.

[Darksheare]

Welcome.
Opening libel laws isn’t the answer.