Trump proposes stronger libel laws, weaker first amendment

[Fawlty]

Translation: The press is saying things I don't like. They should say only things in the way I want them said.

The idea that the press is obligated to only report strict facts is absurd and untrue. The press is an extension of speech, and speech is meant for people to express any sort of position at all, so long as it isn't verifiably untrue or maliciously unfounded.

It even has to be recklessly untrue. You aren't going to be sued successfully if you report something about a public figure in good faith that turns out to be untrue, even if it caused injury.

So I ask which parts of free press would old donald like to see gone? I can't think of any application of his statement that isn't a major infringement.

 

[Diamond Jim]

This is what happened with Ventura/Kyle lawsuit. I recall someone said about the appeal that media organizations were backing Kyle's widow in her appeal because that case set a precedent that you can win damages for defamation.

 

[Fawlty]

This is what happened with Ventura/Kyle lawsuit. I recall someone said about the appeal that media organizations were backing Kyle's widow in her appeal because that case set a precedent that you can win damages for defamation.

If you have anything handy on that I wouldn't mind seeing it. In that case if Ventura could prove Kyle was making up a lie, it seems straightforward and I don't know why the media would defend Kyle's side.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

This is what happened with Ventura/Kyle lawsuit. I recall someone said about the appeal that media organizations were backing Kyle's widow in her appeal because that case set a precedent that you can win damages for defamation.

I can't imagine that case setting the precedent. My understanding was damages due to defamation were simply difficult to prove? Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[PRIDEWASBETTER]

I'd rather see frivolous lawsuits taken care of than this.

 

[Diamond Jim]

If you have anything handy on that I wouldn't mind seeing it. In that case if Ventura could prove Kyle was making up a lie, it seems straightforward and I don't know why the media would defend Kyle's side.

Okay, I was kinda wrong. Jesse is the one saying that so I'm not sure if it's true. From everything I read it isn't easy to win a defamation case.

 

[Diamond Jim]

I can't imagine that case setting the precedent. My understanding was damages due to defamation were simply difficult to prove? Correct me if I'm wrong.

I have no idea. I'm not a lawyer. From previous things I read, Kyle's estate was using a defense from a previous lawsuit where a doctor sued a guy who was writing negative online statements about the doctor and the doctor lost.

 

[Execute]

I have no idea. I'm not a lawyer. From previous things I read, Kyle's estate was using a defense from a previous lawsuit where a doctor sued a guy who was writing negative online statements about the doctor and the doctor lost.

God damn Kyle was a tool.

 

[Diamond Jim]

God damn Kyle was a tool.

I know more than one story has been disproven.

 

[SODACKER]

Scary stuff. And as we expand executive powers because we don't like it when Congress and the president are of different parties we erode individual rights. America has taken a precarious turn where no one cares about individual Freedoms. Courts were once the Beacon to protect them and they are far gone and now quite frankly the only way we can get a powerful entity to stick up for us is under the threat of not buying their phones.

 

[ILLogic]

Trump Jong Un can fuck off with his frivolous bullshit.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

Meh, he'll try.

I doubt he even really wants the job. He handles all the praise of running for office just fine, let's see him handle all the negativity and hatred they comes with being the president.

"What do all men of power want? More power."

-The Oracle.

 

[ILLogic]

I do live in the USA. I also fail to see how stopping radical hate speech is a bad idea. Is it good to promote pedophilIa or hate of Christians or Jews? Should we allow Imams to spread lies.

That behavior can undermine our nation our security and ruin future generations of children. There is always a risk of totalitarian control the key is you can't live life in fear. It's either too little government and the fear that decentralized powers will tke over or exploit you or the fear that too much government will destroy you.

You're such a confused little soul. Why don't you just say you want to ban anti-semitic speech because that's what you're really babbling about here. This is your agenda.

Trump isn't even speaking about hate speech. He just wants to be able to sue the pants off of the next person that writes an article saying he's not worth as much as he professes...

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=8100467&page=1

...or

Donald Trump

has voluntarily dismissed his $5 million lawsuit against Bill Maherfor failing to live up to an "unconditional offer" made on NBC's Tonight Show to donate $5 million to charity if Trump provided a copy of his birth certificate proving that he’s not “spawn of his mother having sex with orangutan.”

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/donald-trump-withdraws-bill-maher-432675

...or whatever the fuck else he pleases

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/03/the-lawsuits-of-donald-trump/273819/

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/7-inc...uding-the-time-he-sued-himself-124327638.html

 

[Skip Reming]

Translation: The press is saying things I don't like. They should say only things in the way I want them said.

Where does he say that? I don't see him saying we should redefine libel. When you look what libel is, you should be able to sue for it. AFAIK these type of cases are hard as fuck to win when the person is actually committing libel.

Then why does he want to "open up" the laws, if they're already exactly what he described?

Dense.

I just said what libel was, not the laws on it and how much is needed to win a libel case.
Also, It is tough to know exactly what he means when he says "open them up".

Just because something fits the definition of libel does not mean you are going to win the lawsuit.

Understand now, dense boy?

Also, not sure how you are getting at = weaker 1st amendment. There have been libel laws before we were america

 

[Fawlty]

I just said what libel was, not the laws on it and how much is needed to win a libel case.
Also, It is tough to know exactly what he means when he says "open them up".

Just because something fits the definition of libel does not mean you are going to win the lawsuit.

Understand now, dense boy?

Also, not sure how you are getting at = weaker 1st amendment. There have been libel laws before we were america

It's not hard to know what he means by "opening up" libel laws. We have his personal history to go by. Like suing Bill Maher for making a joke. And any attack against our protection against defamation is by definition weakening the first amendment.

 

[Skip Reming]

It's not hard to know what he means by "opening up" libel laws. We have his personal history to go by.

How is this so? Do you have some voting record? Do you have a plan he laid out? Do you think the president has the power to change the libel laws? Do you know what the supreme court is?

Do you have any support (you know that little thing called evidence) for what he will try to accomplish with "opening up libel laws" or restrict the 1st amendment?
No, of course you don't, but you just "feel" that he will? Just like the dumb fucking racist BLM assholes just feel all this racism holding them down with zero proof.

 

[Culombo]

the mainstream media are the devil .. they're well known to distort facts and make shit up .. you shouldn't be allowed to do that without being checked .. they should absolutely be held accountable if they make up stories that harm your reputation and possibly your livelihood .. fk them

 

[Fawlty]

How is this so? Do you have some voting record? Do you have a plan he laid out? Do you think the president has the power to change the libel laws? Do you know what the supreme court is?

Do you have any support (you know that little thing called evidence) for what he will try to accomplish with "opening up libel laws" or restrict the 1st amendment?
No, of course you don't, but you just "feel" that he will? Just like the dumb fucking racist BLM assholes just feel all this racism holding them down with zero proof.

Your utter lack of intuition is no longer my problem. I deliver you back to your God, peace be upon him.

 

[sloppypie]

lol, unless trump amends the constitution, he has decades (nay, over a century) worth of free speech case law by our supreme court that have already established the lines of libel/slander and free speech for public figures.

otherwise, no federal laws he's able to slither through will stand up to constitutional muster. what a joke this guy is.

 

[SODACKER]

How is this so? Do you have some voting record? Do you have a plan he laid out? Do you think the president has the power to change the libel laws? Do you know what the supreme court is?

Do you have any support (you know that little thing called evidence) for what he will try to accomplish with "opening up libel laws" or restrict the 1st amendment?
No, of course you don't, but you just "feel" that he will? Just like the dumb fucking racist BLM assholes just feel all this racism holding them down with zero proof.

Personally I don't care how much or how little he wants to pump up libel laws. I'm against and he is the one trying to make a change do its up to him to convince us that he's not just trying to silence critics, cause that's what it reeks of.