Posted on 02/27/2016 10:02:24 AM PST by 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
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
No, I would oppose this no matter who proposed it. I don’t support everything that Cruz has done and he would lose my support entirely if he had proposed this.
“Goodbye first amendment under President Trump.”
You really think that dog will hunt? Instead of laughing at you I am going to wish you the happiest Super Tuesday possible :)
Stand aside, Yuuuuuuge government coming through!!
This guy Trump could be Bloomberg on steroids.
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 flew elsewhere that open libel laws applied.
The USA is not Canada. Not even close. #EpicFail
Hope you have a very happy Super Tuesday :)
Yeah, same thing was said about the formation of the dhs.
Then came the multiple “studies” stating that conservatives are “terrorists”, one study even came from West Point.
Sorry, giving leftists more power is an idiotic idea.
Giving Americans the power to stop false stories about ANYONE is a very good idea. The smear merchant industry will suffer but that will be a great thing, IMO.
Happy Super Tuesday to ya :)
“Giving Americans the power to stop false stories about”
BS.
That is not how it would be used, and anyone who says otherwise is deluded or honestly an active collaborator.
Again, http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3116989/posts
LOL! Agreed. Good luck on the Powerball project. :)
My entire point with posters who claimed Libel and slander are protected 1st amendment rights, that is simply not true.
I wouldn't be too dogmatic about that. In the 1964 New York Times case, SCOTUS specifically limited what a purported defamation victim could do based on balancing his rights with 1st Amendment principles.
So in that sense people are free to defame one anoher, in that there is no prior restraint on defamatory speech. The First Amendment prohibits government-imposed censorship. But those who are slandered are likewise free to defend themselves. And the law will help them greatly if they are private figures who have indeed been wronged. Much less so for public figures.
Peace,
SR
“Ontario Superior Court Justice”
Totto, we’re not in Ontario.
To me this speaks of my major concern with Trump. Either he’s unfamiliar enough with the Constitution and landmark cases like NY Times v. Sullivan to know what he is suggesting is basically impossible, or he knows but is willing to say it anyway and he’s one more politician making empty promises
You seriously believe that couldn’t and wouldn’t happen here?
Canadian law is not USA law. Thanks for playing.
Attack on free LIES
Attack on free LIES
Just what do you think open libel laws are?
Tell that to Free Dominion.
If Cruz can embrace Rubio, campaign for TPA, etc. etc. etc. and THIS is what would make you lose your support for him, then I can see that it’s a very important matter to you.
But I’m not entirely sure that if the roles were reversed, this is what would happen.
I suspect that what you would you would do (or if not you, what most of Cruz’s supporters would do) if Cruz had said those exact words is try to understand what was said and determine whether or not it was actually a direct assault on the First Amendment, or whether it was something else.
With Trump, you instantly seem to assume that it’s an assault on the First Amendment. Whereas many of Trump’s supporters seem to be thinking that it’s an attempt to protect the First Amendment against the media-political establishment, because we all know that by this point the politicians and the media are in bed together and that they’re using the media and PC to stifle our freedom of expression already.
As for me, the way I see it is that this may or may not be Constitutional. It may or may not be smart. I’m not going to take a sound byte as a proposed policy.
If it’s shutting down freedom of speech, that’s bad. If it’s providing us a way to fight back against the propaganda of the media political machine and THEIR attack on our rights, that’s good.
Eh. Ignore the first line of my last post. I wanna talk reasonably in this case, and a semi-flame was a bad start for me.
Truthfully and I’m big on the 1st amendment but the Media really has carte Blanche at this point. Its very hard to sue these publications for libel.
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.