Title: Trump Promises Harsh Media Criticism of Him Will Be ILLEGAL If He’s President (TITLE IS FALSE HE DIDN'T ACTUALLY SAY THAT) Source:
Counter Current News URL Source:http://countercurrentnews.com/2016/ ... legal-if-he-becomes-president/ Published:Feb 27, 2016 Author:M. David Post Date:2016-02-27 11:46:16 by Deckard Keywords:None Views:15414 Comments:68
Have you ever made fun of Donald Trump? Have you ever read an editorial that really lays into him with criticisms of his proposed policies, or even his hair?
Well if Trump becomes president, he promises that things will change, and these sorts of critiques will no longer be legal.
It almost sounds like satire, but during a speech in Texas on Friday morning, the Republican candidate and frontrunner, Donald Trump said he wants to sue news outlets if they negative stories about him.
He acknowledged that currently the First Amendment of the Constitution protects a free press, and thus shields journalists from suits like this.
But Trump said on Friday that he would limit the press using litigation that would be permitted due to “opening up” libel laws and allowing them to include things like criticism and critiques that he doesn’t like.
“I think the media is among the most dishonest groups of people I’ve ever met,” Trump stated. “They’re terrible.”
So Trump promised to change things through legislating what he considers “honest reporting.”
“One of the things I’m gonna do, and this is only gonna make it tougher for me, and I’ve never said this before, but one of the things I’m gonna do if I win… is I’m gonna 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 gonna open up those libel laws.”
He went even further and made it clear what he meant, saying, “We’re gonna open up those libel laws, folks, and we’re gonna have people sue you like you never get sued before.”
of course ,suing people is what Trump does best .Trump isn't talking about facts .He's talking about his bruised ego . Who defines what is 'horrible and purposely negative ' ? I just have to wonder how many times he would've been sued had his proposals been the law of the land ?
Gutting the 1st amendment so public leaders can silence critics is totalitarianism in my book. I've got news for Trump . The 1st campaigns in this country were far more vicious when it came to the lies and slanders . The nation survived . Take his proposal now and put the power in the hands of Evita or Bolshevik Bernie. Not so attractive is it ? I'm probably on my way to the frog march ,and if not me ,any conservative outlet that opposes them .Evita thinks they are all in a conspiracy against her. But I have to give him credit . He has most of the US media wrapped around his fingers . He claims his campaign is self financed ;but he should be giving a big hat tip to the press in this country who cower at the idea that he would cut off their access. The free promotion has been worth $$$$$$$ millions .
"If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools." Plato
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
"Trump suing the press for criticizing his hair is "constitutional"?
Is that whhat he said? Let me check. No. He didn't say that. There's a transcript (AND a video if you cant read):
He said, "... but one of the things Im gonna do if I win is Im gonna 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."
That's the way it was in our country for 200 years. An activist court in 1967 changed that by excluding "public figures" from protection against libel and slander.
Does freedom of the press include them intentionally telling lies about someone -- to promote some hidden agenda -- without facing any consequences for their action?
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
"Gutting the 1st amendment so public leaders can silence critics is totalitarianism in my book."
The critics can still publish whatever they want. Trump is simply saying that they need to be held responsible for what they publish. If the press chooses to knowingly publish a lie, they open themselves up to a lawsuit.
This is currently the case with private citizens and WAS the case with public figures prior to 1967. Trump wants to go back to the original laws.
but one of the things Im gonna do if I win is Im gonna 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."
And here I thought misterwhite was opposed to frivolous lawsuits.
You Trump cultists are the Bush Bots of the new milenium.
Does freedom of the press include them intentionally telling lies about someone -- to promote some hidden agenda.
Maybe you should ask Hannity, O'Reilly, Kelley and Limbaugh.
As far as I know, there is no "fair and balanced" clause in the First amendment.
Truth is treason in the empire of lies. - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
"And here I thought misterwhite was opposed to frivolous lawsuits."
I expect the truth from any organization given special protection under the first amendment. The first amendment exists in order to protect the dissemination of the truth to the public.
I don't see the benefit in protecting the ability of news organizations to tell me lies. I think if a protected news organization intentionally tells me lies they should be held responsible under our civil tort laws.
The second amendment protects your right to keep and bear arms. Does that mean you can use those arms to violate the law?
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
"By Deckard's "reasoning", establishment insiders should have a greater right to keep and bear arms than the rest of us."
They way I read him, establishment insiders (EI) would have the same right to keep and bear arms as the rest of us.
BUT, the EI could use those arms any way they wanted without repercussion. They can shoot people, rob stores, whatever -- all the while hiding behind their special EI license to own guns.
They way I read him, establishment insiders (EI) would have the same right to keep and bear arms as the rest of us.
BUT, the EI could use those arms any way they wanted without repercussion. They can shoot people, rob stores, whatever -- all the while hiding behind their special EI license to own guns.
Yeah, that's about right. The Übermensch could shoot the Juden, but the Juden couldn't shoot back. Heil, Deckard!
The court decided that public figures needed to prove that there was a falsehood ,and that the press knew it was false.
In this case there is no Federal libel laws. There are state laws. So when Her Donald proposes "opening up " libel laws what he means is that he wants to amend the 1st amendment .
"If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools." Plato
Heres the rundown: On August 18, 2000, journalist Jane Akre won $425,000 in a court ruling where she charged she was pressured by Fox News management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information.
The real information: she found out cows in Florida were being injected with RBGH, a drug designed to make cows produce milk and, according to FDA-redacted studies, unintentionally designed to make human beings produce cancer.
Fox lawyers, under pressure by the Monsanto Corporation (who produced RBGH), rewrote her report over 80 times to make it compatible with the companys requests. She and her husband, journalist Steve Wilson, refused to air the edited segment.
In February 2003, Fox appealed the decision and an appellate court and had it overturned. Fox lawyers argued it was their first amendment right to report false information. In a six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals decided the FCCs position against news distortion is only a policy, not a law, rule, or regulation.
So, Fox and the other gladiatorical cable news channels were given the okay to legally lie right around the time of the Iraq Wars birth when media lies coincidentally hit a peak in both frequency and severity.
Truth is treason in the empire of lies. - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
The court decided that public figures needed to prove that there was a falsehood
Quote, please. It's not like I don't trust your interpretations, but I don't trust your interpretations.
'In sum the court ruled that "the First Amendment protects the publication of all statements, even false ones, about the conduct of public officials except when statements are made with actual malice (with knowledge that they are false or in reckless disregard of their truth or falsity).'