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 ...
In theory you can’t change elections but I can’t remember ANY equivalent in American history-—not even Goldwater-—where elites were so arrayed against the average voter.
Electrons, not elections.
You can sequester copies of Time, but you can't easily stop random people with computers from disseminating information.
By the time the court decided whether to allow distribution of the hard copies of National Review or The Nation, the data will already be all over the place.
Welcome.
Surprised at the people who don’t mind opening the door for tyranny.
You said...
“Surprised at the people who don’t mind opening the door for tyranny.”
But it’s “their” tyranny:)
But that’s the point. The “The NY Slimes” writes their screed with malicious intent. The same way Blather broke that BS story about Bush. Blather lied with malicious intent. Our founders intended for a truthful press, not what we have right now.
Paul Ryan will be too giving press conferences on his .0001% tax cut to pass anything Trump wants.
If the Washington Post decides to do an expose on “dschapin” of Free Republic and says you have been shown to have dalliances with women in 23 states, as long as the Washington Post said there was no malice, that should be okay?
We’ve all spent years here on FR complaining about the media, in fact FR in of itself is a result of a biased and corrupt media.
Now we’ve FINALLY got a candidate who’s NOT AFRAID, and going to stick it to the media, and you want... WHAT?!!!!!
Good lord. What’s wrong with you people?
Really? Or is that a lie?
It would be easy to prove malice in that case since they would have no evidence and they would know that publishing such a scurrilous lie would hurt my reputation. That is why they would never publish that story because I would easily be able to sue them for libel under current law.
If WaPo decided to write an article that said you had slept with dozens of men, infecting the last eight with HIV, would that be acceptable, as long as you can’t prove they had specific malice toward you?
My bet is on you wanting to sue them.
How do you prove malice, when they had “no reason” to go after you?
“It was an accident, anyway.”
The malice can be shown by demonstrating that they knowingly told false information about you in a way that they knew would hurt your reputation.
Actually since I am a private citizen it would be really easy to prove the libel case. But even if I was a public figure I still would be able to win that libel case. Basically I just have to show that they knowingly told a lie about me that they knew would do me harm. If I can prove those two things then I have proven malice.
“That is why they would never publish that story because I would easily be able to sue them for libel under current law.”
Ok, how about if the media spent years and decades fostering class hatred, degenerate life-styles, failed economic systems, racial hatred, ethnic strife, one party over the other, outright lies, and big wasteful government at all levels, in the news, non-news and educational media, could you sue them for that under “current law”?
No, and that is exactly the sort of political arguments that I don’t want the media to be able to sued on. That’s because I don’t want a government court making a decision about which political ideas or causes are true and which ones are false. Realize that any court which can try to muffle the press’s support of BLM can also try to muzzle FR and the prolife movement.
Free Republic would even be effected, you would not be able to voice any opinion., you want that?
We may not like what they write, and detest their motives, but it is still the best way to weed out fraud, corruption and all other sorts of illegal activity no matter who it is.
Without the press there would never have been a Watergate.
“No, and that is exactly the sort of political arguments that I don’t want the media to be able to sued on. That’s because I don’t want a government court making a decision about which political ideas or causes are true and which ones are false.”
How nice of you. Still playing by the rules as the country goes down the toilet, mainly because of a utterly corrupted media.
“Realize that any court which can try to muffle the press’s support of BLM can also try to muzzle FR and the prolife movement.”
Lol, you think the courts HAVEN’T already muzzled FR and the prolife movement!? Try to log in to FR on Amtrak, see what happens.
Where do you live...Fantasyland?
The Media is our enemy.
Wade into them.
Spill their blood (not literally)...
/Patton
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.”
Have you thought back to when “news” stopped being “news?”
Trump is completely right on this.
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.