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 ...
I agree that there is objective Truth. However, there are many political arguments where both sides are passionately sure that they are right. Do you really want a court adjudicating those and deciding what is true and what is false?
Who wrote that headline? RuPaul?
Because I don’t believe that he is ineligible. I agree with the founders who drafted the first immigration law which said that the children of American Citizens born overseas where to be considered as natural born.
Yes, there is a difference between questioning someone’s character and then out right smearing a person’s character by promulgating lies that the ignorant masses then consume.
Tell that to Obama!
Washington Post is full on assualt on Donald Trump..24/7
F U Bezos. Im done with Amazon.com it’s a losing company anyway except for their cloud servers
That’s true, but your argument seems to be that it is a political argument to deliberately lie about someone.
BTW, public figures almost never win libel suits, because there is a much higher bar for them.
Well... even if Romney and McCain didn’t get 100% FReeper support after the nomination, we did ‘look on the bright side’ and admit that they were the better choice over the Dem. We also focused on the few redeeming points that the men had.
I remember the “I’m voting for Palin, not McCain!” threads.
Trump said this. How is it “destroying him” to report it? But I guess that’s what he wants - to be able to control what is reported, and if he doesn’t like it, it’s a “hit piece.” Even though it’s his own words, and even though political attack pieces in public media were, actually, one of the reasons we have the First Amendment.
The First Amendment doesn’t provide infinite protections to all forms of speech, and it’s worth debating what should be protected.
If the NYT or any other business publishes information they know to be false, should it be protected from slander and libel claims if the victim is a public figure?
“Trump is an asshat” should be protected, granted.
However, what Trump is cleverly doing is forcing the press to defend the idea that they should be able to lie about matters of fact, and be protected.
So, as they start to unleash a tidal wave or negative press on Trump in a last ditch attempt to stop him, most of it based on at least a germ of fact, but not all of it, the press will be screaming that Trump the tyrant wants to cut off their ability to knowingly lie with no consequence.
Trump is, as he has been recently, a move ahead.
I don’t care if you support his candidacy or not, Trump has shown amazing skills at anticipating the narrative and countering before his opponents can react effectively.
He loves the media and they love him. He already owns them. This latest is his way of reminding them.
I bet many newspapers are losing subscribers because of their attacks on Trump. But they’ve got to do it. The Establishment needs all hands on deck to take out ONE GUY.
No. It’s a toss up on who is being the most vitriolic when it comes to their candidate and his opposition.
“He is running for dictator not president.”
Your claim is histrionic and absurd.
Devestiture, or whatever you want to call it, needs to take place in:
Universities
K-12 grade
Media outlets
Government funds should not be paying for an ideology that is sworn to overthrow it. Our universities are 80-90% hard core Leftist. Our government is essentially backing the Communist party at our universities and schools.
That must end. A rough parity in ideological stance should be the goal, and when that parity does not exist, neither does government funding.
Media Outlets serve the public, and during licensing periods they should have to justify how presenting only one side of issues, is serving the public interest.
If they can’t show non-bias in either direction, they should lose their license to operate.
Should publication of false stories be ignored? If CNN ran a story about you molesting poodles would you chuckle and let it go?
I agree, and I think that’s only reasonable.
Another inflated slander attack from a Trumpster. No, that's what you WANT to think he thinks. That's what you PROJECT he thinks. Here's reality: we already have libel laws for media. There are three standards of proof required to win a case:
So, which of those standards do you think we can dispense without infringing upon the First Amendment? Do you think such libel laws should be applied here at FR? If so, it would cease to exist.
So, put up or shut up.
Dear Erik Wemple:
You and the Compost have stated many times that Trump has declared bankruptcy three times. You, and the Compost know that three of Trump’s COMPANIES have declared bankruptcy, not him personally.
What should your penalty be?
5.56mm
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.