From what I understand, libel suits against any one deemed to be a "public figure" almost impossible to win and exceedingly expensive to pursue.
Maybe they shouldn't be opened up I don't know, my point was that the 1st does not protect it.
The problem with living in our society is that now matter how good a law is there is a scumbag attorney out there who will pervert it for money. They know the can get settlements most time because its cheaper to settle in the long run.
I don't have the answer FRiend, again my issue was statements here Trump is going to attempt to take away 1st Amendment rights.
Yes. I think you might have meant to say that the standard for libeling a “public figure” are much harder to meet than, say, you or me.
You and I can sue someone for knowingly and maliciously making false claims about us that have caused us harm.
Even that is a pretty high bar to get over; and add to it that you and I would have to be rich OR find a lawyer willing to work on contingency.
The standards for Mr. Trump, or Hillary Clinton, to sue somebody for libel are almost impossible to meet, because they are “public figures”; in other words they have put themselves in the public arena, and must expect to be assailed, even untruthfully, in the rough-and-tumble public marketplace.
What bugs me is that someone like George Zimmerman or Joe the Plumber can also be torn to shreds by the media, even though they were dragged into the public eye.
But in cases like theirs CNN and others can usually escape punishment by claiming that their misstatements were errors, not intentional slander.
Probably more than you cared to read lol...