[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
politics and politicians Title: Trump Promises Harsh Media Criticism of Him Will Be ILLEGAL If He’s President (TITLE IS FALSE HE DIDN'T ACTUALLY SAY THAT) 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.” See if for yourself in the video clip below…
(Article by M. David; Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 48. The 1st Amendment (written to restrict Congressional legislation only) didn't created a preferred class for purposes of libel and slander. The New York Times has no greater 1st Amendment rights in that regard than Joe Sixpack. Try actually reading it someday.
#4. To: Roscoe (#1) "The 1st Amendment (written to restrict Congressional legislation only) didn't created a preferred class for purposes of libel and slander." Sure it did. It clearly says that the press can write lies about you if you're a public figure. The U.S. Supreme Court found it hiding in a penumbra. I'm with Trump on this one. Get rid of the "public figure" exemption and hold the press responsible for negligent behavior. All other countries do it. And, prior to 1967, so did the United States.
#6. To: misterwhite (#4) Get rid of the "public figure" exemption Cruz and Rubio would wind up penniless from their libels and slanders in this campaign alone.
#7. To: Roscoe, misterwhite (#6) The funny thing is that you two partisan puppets would be against this had it been proposed by Hillary.
#11. To: Deckard (#7) "had it been proposed by Hillary." Hillary would never propose a return to constitutional law.
#14. To: misterwhite (#11) (Edited) Hillary would never propose a return to constitutional law. Trump suing the press for criticizing his hair is "constitutional"? What country do you currently reside in comrade? I'll bet you two clowns love Feinstein. Feinstein wants to limit who can be a journalist
#20. To: Deckard (#14) "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 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." 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?
#25. To: misterwhite (#20) (Edited) 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." 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.
#32. To: Deckard (#25) "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?
#36. To: misterwhite (#32) The second amendment protects your right to keep and bear arms. By Deckard's "reasoning", establishment insiders should have a greater right to keep and bear arms than the rest of us.
#47. To: Roscoe (#36) "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.
#48. To: misterwhite (#47) They way I read him, establishment insiders (EI) would have the same right to keep and bear arms as the rest of us. Yeah, that's about right. The Übermensch could shoot the Juden, but the Juden couldn't shoot back. Heil, Deckard!
Replies to Comment # 48. There are no replies to Comment # 48.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 48. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|