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 ...
You could have worked for Stalin with a line like that one. Do you really want courts to determine what is true and false in politics?
With all due respect dschapin, this is probably not how the Founding States had intended for the 1st Amendment to be understood imo. This is evidenced by the fact that the Bill of Rights was originally intended to limit the powers of the federal government only, not those of the states.
It wasn’t until the 14th Amendment was ratified (under very questionable circumstances), that the states also obligated themselves to respect constitutionally enumerated rights.
H O W E V E R …
Note that John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment (14A), had clarified that 14A did not take away state powers.
“The adoption of the proposed amendment will take from the States no rights [emphasis added] that belong to the States.” —John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe. (See bottom half of first column)
“No right [emphasis added] reserved by the Constitution to the States should be impaired…” —John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe. (See top half of 1st column)
“Do gentlemen say that by so legislating we would strike down the rights of the State [emphasis added]? God forbid. I believe our dual system of government essential to our national existance.” —John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe. (See bottom half of third column)
So since the states had the constitutionally unchecked 10th Amendment (10A) power to regulate our 1st Amendment-protected personal rights before 14A was ratified, they still had the power to do so after that amendment was ratified, 14A limiting, not prohibiting, such powers.
In fact, Justice Reed had noted that it is the job of judges to balance 10A-protected state powers with 14A-protected personal rights.
"Conflicts in the exercise of rights arise and the conflicting forces seek adjustments in the courts, as do these parties, claiming on the one side the freedom of religion, speech and the press, guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, and on the other the right to employ the sovereign power explicitly reserved to the State by the Tenth Amendment to ensure orderly living without which constitutional guarantees of civil liberties would be a mockery." --Justice Reed, Jones v. City of Opelika, 1942.
You said...
“And so you are a “living constitutionalist liberal”. Thank you for letting me know, note taken.”
naw.
Just don’t like politicians threatening news organizations into silence.Even news organizations I dislike and disagree with because, unlike a Trumpanista such as yourself, I have enough human reasoning to understand that what Trump is proposing here can be used to intimidate people into silence that I do agree with with. And since politicians have a natural reaction to yell “lie” when they read stories that could harm them, I see the inherent danger in this. Clear it up enough for you?
You’re comfortable with that. Thanks for letting me know, note taken
FreeRepublic has been treating liberals that way ever since I joined.
When you fall off your high-horse, please explain which of these things people should be able to make up and post here without being called on it.
Until then, you’ve got your nerve trying to turn this on me.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3402737/posts?page=6#6
Yeah,and that’s just the front of his pants....
So you are ok with the political correctness status quo. Again, thanks for letting me know your position.
Wow... the title doesn’t match the article at all.
I don’t see how making it harder for the media to lie is a threat to democracy.
We should be a church oriented moral society and because we are not, (by and large) we are left to our own devices, which translates into the situation ethics of the accepted practice(s) or the court directed behavior dictates ... because you can't legislate morality but you CAN (and they have and DO), legislate behavior
Unless and until we get back to a biblical definition of what is moral and what is not .... the courts already decide our "truth"
LOL you are the extremist Trump poster. Make sure you cover your ears next time and say “LaLaLaLaLaLa!”
The public holds them accountable. Many have gone out of business when people didn’t believe them and didn’t buy their papers. Do we really want the govt making it easier to coerce the media? The freedom of the press is one of the cherished cornerstones of our democracy. Do we actually want a clown who gets mad every time he doesn’t like what someone says about them to have this power? This is dangerous, and those of you who are Trump supporters should realize it if they get past their blanket approval of their man. Or can he actually kill someone and everyone still support him?
Finally, we all threw a fit when Obama tried the “fairness doctrine” to go after talk radio? Are you ready for Trump to be able to go against any of his opponents?
He also said he wants to change current law. Under current law news organizations can already be sued for knowing spreading false information about a public figure with a malicious intent to do harm.
As to your nasty accusation, I know you are trying to prove a point but I will tell you that that is exactly the sort of thing that you can be sued for under current libel law.
Waaaa! Teacher Trump wants to sue the Media. Waaaaa!
I actually will agree with you there. Originally the bill of rights did just restrict the power of the federal government and not that of the states.
They should have to show some form of equity in hiring.
They do it to us...
They shouldn’t have 90% Leftists in a public service entity.
Issues should be reported, and then even representations around round tables should discuss them, with qualified people on both sides.
The days of pumping out Leftist bilge 99% of the time should be gone.
Actually, it does. Which is why there is no federal law against yelling 'FIRE' in a crowded theatre or lying about other people. Because Amendment I expressly prohibits the federal legislature from doing exactly that.
You can imagine the defense by Megyn or WAPO - I meant Trump no harm. I published the falsehood because if it is true the republic would be harmed and I am defending the Republic. That it was false or misleading is irrelevant. I have no malice towards Mr. Trump. I wish him the best in the world, just not as president, or some such.
Perhaps you should ask George Allen.
I dare say that all FReepers know and love the freedoms in the First Amendment. Let’s stipulate to that.
Does anyone here think the media is democracy? Imagine if George W Bush didn’t have a legal birth certificate and had no way to prove he was eligible to be President. Would the Post think this was suitable for months of above the fold coverage? Would they influence whether the people thought he was eligible? Would it influence their votes? I think so. Now imagine (this takes a lot of work) Barack Obama had the same problem. Would this ever be discussed in the post, ever? Other than to slander anyone who suggested it should be covered?
The advertisers and the “news” publishers are as symbiotic as the Soviet Politburo and the Cold War Pravda.
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.