Posted on 02/27/2016 10:02:24 AM PST by dschapin
Such “tweaks” worked so well in Canada, where the press still lies, is leftist, but only conservative sites get punished for repeating and discussing the news.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3116989/posts
“Conservative website shuttered after libel ruling [Free Dominion]”
http://freerepublic.com/tag/freedominion/index?tab=articles
That is the classic way and it works as long as people still care about truth.
When people stop caring, then the courts are appealed to.
Numbskull.
Keep drinking the kool-aid.
Trump is not advocating taking it away, I don't get your point.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3116989/posts
“Conservative website shuttered after libel ruling [Free Dominion]”
http://freerepublic.com/tag/freedominion/index?tab=articles
I misunderstood you on first reading. My apologies.
Right, which they have clearly used to ruin countless lives seemingly intentionally to push free thought into the court of the left. Take for example George Zimmerman.
Uh no, please read what was actually said by Trump.
I'm going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles
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.
Not for a public figure who has put himself out there for all kinds of criticism, especially politicians. Negligence is a requirement for published misinterpretations for a private person but a higher degree of culpability, malice, is needed for published misrepresentations of a public person and rightly so because the public figure has gained recognition but has also signed up for criticism, deserved and undeserved.
Especially in this context, that of a politician, the danger isn’t in published criticism, but in dampening freedom of the press.
Only someone as narcissistic as Trump would fail to realize that the same law that makes it easier for him to sue others for libel would also make it easier for others to sue him for the same thing.
You are absolutely right about slander and libel NOT being protected by the 1st Amendment.
So why would would we need to “open up” libel laws?
I’m not trying to goad you, not acting out of “hatred”, not at all.
Just wondering how your clear-headed statements can be reconciled with Trump seems to want.
Donald Trump said nothing about govt censorship. All he said was the laws should be strengthened so that private individuals be able to sue for libel and win, if they have been libeled. Let the press start being responsible for what they print. No more destroying innocent people to further their communist agenda. If they have no moral compunction about destroying an individual, preventing honest elections by telling lies, if they will not be just or fair or honest, then let them pay, let them pay so much they are put out of business, and let other news organizations take their place, those who think maybe telling the truth is their job! An honest press has nothing to fear from a libel suit because they can easily defend themselves as they have done their homework. Furthermore, if they have told the truth about an individual, it is highly doubtful that individual is going to sue them. The last thing that individual wants is any further exposure of the truth and the cost of a pointless lawsuit he is going to lose. I think strengthening libel laws will benefit our country greatly, and help keep it free. It will take away an important tool of the lying communist left who destroy honest candidates with lies and innuendos, and cover-up the crimes of dishonest candidates with a leftist agenda who will destroy the first amendment after they have destroyed the second. What is the matter with you people, anyway?
Trump is saying he wants to change the libel laws. Current law already allows him to sue for libel. Here is what the article says about current law.
“Under current law, largely determined at the state instead of federal level, public persons, such as politicians, can win a suit against a media organization only if the person can prove that the publication published information with actual malice, knowing it to be wholly incorrect, as well as in cases of reckless disregard. The case that set this precedent — New York Times Co. v. Sullivan — was decided by the Supreme Court in 1964.”
So, if Trump wants to make it easier to sue for Libel then he must be wanting to take away some of the elements that you currently have to prove in order to win a libel case.
Since libel and slander are not protected by the 1st as you claim by accusing Trump of wanting to take away the first, in your case I'll attribute it to utter ignorance for the sake of criticizing someone who is not your candidate of choice.
Is that better, jerk?
Please read post 104. It shows exactly what would happen if we change the law to make it easier for public figures to sue for libel.
I'll have to read the links when I get the chance but were they proven in court to be libelous?
>>Please, I am begging any of you Trump supporters who also care about our freedom to reconsider your support for this man.
Freedom to do what?
Want to do a protest, get a permit.
Don’t want to bake a cake for a gay couple, get sued.
Want to call Bruce Jenner “Bruce”, get flamed. If you are famous, the press will ruin you for your homophobia.
The media can lie about you on Monday on Page 1. The rest of the media can grab the story and run with it on all their Page 1’s on Tuesday. You will be dragged through the mud all week. When they are proven wrong, they will retract it on Page 16 on Friday.
There is no more journalism. It is all agenda advocacy now. There’s always been yellow journalism (that started the Spanish-American War, for example), but today that is all there is.
If a person shoots up his workplace, we don’t call that “exercising his 2nd Amendment rights”. Advocacy journalism is the first amendment version of shooting up a workplace.
And what is our solution to people shooting up a workplace???
Answer: Permit a means of defense.
Let’s say Trump wins and he does something we disagree with. It is a reasonable assumption that this will happen. In my lifetime, Nixon, Reagan, and both Bush’es have done things we did not like, and we have been free to speak our minds on places like this and elsewhere. If he gets his way, and we go “overboard “ in our criticism, do we now run this risk of a lawsuit? If we cannot pay, are we jailed? I stand withe the 1st amendment, even for those I think are wrong. They have the right to be wrong. Remember, the left still wins elections,too. I agree that this is a chilling development, and if you stand for freedom, you simply cannot let this stand.
Like I said yesterday, your wife wears combat boots!
Take that!
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.