Posted on 02/27/2016 1:57:52 PM PST by dschapin
In his remarks today at a rally in Fort Worth, Tex., Donald Trump knew he’d make news. “I’ve never said this before,” he declared.
We’ll await the word of the Washington Post Fact Checker on the integrity of the statement, but Trump did appear to be veering into a new talking point. A media-law talking point, that is:
One of the things I’m going to do, and this is going to make it tougher for me…but one of the things I’m going to do if I win…is 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 that 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.
An attack on media law is a logical extension of Trump’s rhetoric, not to mention a threat to American democracy. After all, he has displayed a highly undemocratic annoyance with the idea that the media is independent. For months he has been attempting to get the cameras at his rallies to properly pan around the thronged arenas, the better to capture his out-of-control popularity, even when the camera operators’ job is to stay on him. He has ridiculed reporter after reporter for reporting the facts of Trump’s march through the GOP primaries. Whenever he has been busted out by investigative journalism, he has attacked the institutions that have compiled it.
...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
The First Amendment does not allow election fraud. Lies about elections are not covered by the First Amendment. Just like slander. Except much more important---elections must be above reproach and are considered sacred. If some can lie with impunity and in doing so tamper with the veracity and fairness of an election there is no constitutional protection.
Did wapo have a problem with Obama/Clinton throwing that youtube guy in jail for supposedly slandering some ancient religious prophet? But but democracy!
Good I hate DEMOCRACY!
We’re supposed to be a Republic, but that idea probably died over a century ago.
“Free Republic is all about destroying Trump at least by all the posts I see..getting hard to keep reading the crap out there!!”
It’s a conservative site, what do you expect?
Justice Scalia: reflections on New York Times v. Sullivan
Ken Paulson
President, First Amendment Center
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Forty-seven years ago, the free press became much more free.
In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that journalists may not be sued successfully by public officials for libel unless their news coverage was false, damaged a reputation and was published with “actual malice.” That meant establishing that the defamation was published “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” The Court concluded that such protection was necessary to preserve open debate and discussion about government policy and conduct. Without that protection, the First Amendment guarantee of a free press was largely subject to widely disparate state laws, none of which provided a similar shield against lawsuits.
The 1964 case set the stage for the aggressive investigative reporting to come, including landmark reporting in the Watergate era. It is certainly one of the most important legal decisions in the history of American journalism — and arguably one of the most settled.
That’s why it was interesting to hear Associate Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia bring up the case in a conversation at the Aspen Institute 2011 Washington Ideas Forum at the Newseum last week.
In elaborating on his point that courts should not render decisions that in effect legislate, he said that New York Times Co. v. Sullivan means “you can libel public figures without liability so long as you are relying on some statement from a reliable source, whether it’s true or not.
“Now the old libel law used to be (that) you’re responsible, you say something false that harms somebody’s reputation, we don’t care if it was told to you by nine bishops, you are liable,” Scalia continued. “New York Times v. Sullivan just cast that aside because the Court thought in modern society, it’d be a good idea if the press could say a lot of stuff about public figures without having to worry. And that may be correct, that may be right, but if it was right it should have been adopted by the people. It should have been debated in the New York Legislature and the New York Legislature could have said, ‘Yes, we’re going to change our libel law.’ But the living constitutionalists on the Supreme Court, the Warren Court, simply decided, ‘Yes, it used to be that … George Washington could sue somebody that libeled him, but we don’t think that’s a good idea any more.’”
Scalia was using the case as an illustration, and there’s no immediate likelihood that Times v. Sullivan will be overturned. But the justice’s comments serve as a reminder that the protections afforded by that decision are not engraved on a monument — and America’s news media can’t afford to take them for granted.
A few years ago, during an interview, Cruz was asked what constituted a NBC. His reply was : "the child born of TWO AMERICAN CITIZENS at the time of the birth and on American soil." That IS exactly what our government tells those immigrants studying for their NATURALIZATION papers !
Now, all of a sudden, he has changed his mind, even though the government has NOT changed the law.
Rubio is NOT a NBC either, nor is Bobby Jindal and Nikki Haley !
The poodle? Not a chance. Cackling all the wayyy!
You’re so cute when you’re in over your head.
The U.S. Constitution is not a suicide pact.
Washington Post TDS, which will infect FReepers with TDS.
And so you are a “living constitutionalist liberal”. Thank you for letting me know, note taken.
Wow, you are already coming up with a list of news organizations that you want punished and news stories that you think should be censored. This is very scary stuff.
ho hum.
“Read carefully, in other words, Trump’s words delivered a thundering endorsement of the status quo in libel jurisprudence. Surely he didn’t mean as much - if elected he would doubtless move ahead with this plan to make it harder for news outlets to call him out. Though for a guy who spends much of his day writing over-the-top slams of other public officials, maybe Trump should give thanks for the First Amendment.”
>> He has benefitted greatly from his easy access to free media <<
Absolutely. Truer words could not be spoken. The MSM want Trump to be the GOP nominee. He makes for fantastic copy, with high readership and high viewership numbers. So now, most of the media denizens are in the “build up” stage of the Trump Narrative, and they’re enjoying every minute of it.
>> Seems kinda stupid to scare them off <<
I believe that things don’t work that way. Once Trump is the GOP standard bearer, he doesn’t need to “scare” the media. No, the “tear down” stage will begin regardless — and with deadly seriousness.
It’s all a part of a standard campaign narrative, like a great novel or epic poem. Build a hero up, let him exhibit maximum hubris, then tear him down until he crashes and burns. It’s gonna be ferocious. You ain’t seen nothin’ yet.
In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that journalists may not be sued successfully by public officials for libel unless their news coverage was false, damaged a reputation and was published with “actual malice.” That meant establishing that the defamation was published “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” The Court concluded that such protection was necessary to preserve open debate and discussion about government policy and conduct. Without that protection, the First Amendment guarantee of a free press was largely subject to widely disparate state laws, none of which provided a similar shield against lawsuits.
If you are into fiscal responsibility Trump will be the most conservative. Bar none.
Brewer, prominent voice on immigration reform, endorses Donald Trump
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3402746/posts
Words fail me.
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.