Trump pushes censorship as "libel laws" changes

[devil21]

Create a problem then offer the solution?

[nobody's_hero]

I didn't think libel was a thing anymore. If it were, every liberal news writer would be sued penniless.

[nikcers]

Create a problem then offer the solution?
Washington heard you didn't like fake news, why don't you want them to fix it for you?

[donnay]

Create a problem then offer the solution?

What problem did he create?

[nikcers]

What problem did he create?
Censorship is the problem he is creating to solve another problem.

[donnay]

Censorship is the problem he is creating to solve another problem.

What is he censoring?

[nikcers]

What is he censoring?
Censoring some stuff is okay I guess, if its stuff I don't like.

[donnay]

Censoring some stuff is okay I guess, if its stuff I don't like.

You didn't answer my question: What is he censoring?

[nikcers]

You didn't answer my question: What is he censoring?
If you don't understand that ideas have consequences then you don't understand what Ron Paul has been doing all these years. The establishment understands that ideas have consequences and BAD ideas have BAD consequences.

[donnay]

If you don't understand that ideas have consequences then you don't understand what Ron Paul has been doing all these years. The establishment understands that ideas have consequences and BAD ideas have BAD consequences.


Dr. Paul also repeats a Victor Hugo quote: "All the forces in the world are not so powerful as an idea whose time has come."

So should people be allowed to smear another person's name endlessly without consequences?

[nikcers]

Dr. Paul also repeats a Victor Hugo quote: "All the forces in the world are not so powerful as an idea whose time has come."

So should people be allowed to smear another person's name endlessly without consequences?
What gives the federal government the right to do anything about it?

[Superfluous Man]

What is he censoring?

I don't know if he's succeeded yet. But he has definitely endorsed censorship and attempted it.
https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/freedom-press/donald-trump-thinks-freedom-press-disgusting

That list is a few months old. So it doesn't include his threat to sue the publisher of Fire and Fury, or his more recent claim that he would change the country's libel laws that the OP mentions.

[donnay]

It would take President Trump an awful lot to try to change the libel laws. It won't happen and there are too many safe guards in place, as it should be, to allow a President to do such. He was just blowing off steam, which I don't blame him with this latest piece of fiction Michael Wolff wrote. He is getting hit from all sides with lies on a daily basis.

[Superfluous Man]

It would take President Trump an awful lot to try to change the libel laws.

For one thing, libel laws aren't federal, they're state.

But apparently Trump doesn't grasp that.

[Zippyjuan]

Trump wants to be able to sue anybody who says something he doesn't like. In England it is easier to do that.

Libel laws discourage free speech. In this case, the publishers and author of that Michael Wolf book critical of him.

[Zippyjuan]

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/trump-still-has-no-clue-about-libel-laws-w515331



Trump Still Has No Clue About Libel Laws

It's a day of the week that ends in y, so that means that President Trump must be upset about the media again. This week he's sounding a familiar theme: That he's going to do something about libel laws. And, like every time he's made these comments before, he's showing that he's as idiotic as he is thin-skinned.

This started almost two years ago, when on the campaign trail President Trump promised, if elected, to "open up our libel laws." He was, as he still is, upset about newspapers and others in the media who "write purposely negative and horrible and false articles." He wanted, and still does, to be able to sue them "and win lots of money."

As anyone who follows the news knows, Trump has continued to rail against the media throughout his presidency, but this has taken on new relevance in light of the publication of Michael Wolff's Fire and Fury. The president demanded the book not be published and has threatened to sue now that it has.

Rather than let the firestorm around the book peter out on its own, Trump has continued in his crusade against both the book and the media generally. In doing so, he went back to his favorite topic, libel laws. "Our current libel laws are a sham and a disgrace and do not represent American values or American fairness. So we're going to take a strong look at that. You can't say things that are false, knowingly false and be able to smile as money pours into your bank account."

As with every other time he's talked about libel laws, Trump again proved that he has absolutely no clue what he's talking about. It's impossible to overstate how idiotic these comments are for one simple reason: the president has nothing to do with American libel law.

This is the stuff of Law 101. Libel laws allow people to sue for written defamatory comments. Every state has its own body of law around libel. In contrast, the federal government has no law governing libel. This is one of those many areas of law – like almost all aspects of personal injury law – that the federal government has no say over. Rather, libel law is controlled by the law of 50 different states.

Maybe President Trump understands this and thinks that he has some say in state law? If so, he fails an even more basic aspect of Law 101 – that the president has no say in what laws states have. State governors, state legislatures and state courts do. The president can use his bully pulpit to talk about the issue, but no one has to listen.

That being said, there are two very tangential ways in which the federal government does or can have some say in libel law. First, the federal Constitution protects freedom of speech and press. In 1964, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution protects the press from libel lawsuits by public officials unless the public official can prove that the press acted with "actual malice," meaning that the press knew the statement was true but published it anyway.

This ruling has formed a bedrock principle of American law for over half a century now. Giving Trump the most unwarranted benefit of the doubt ever in history, it's possible he wants to revisit that ruling from the Supreme Court. But, to do so would require a really convoluted legal path that would be difficult to imagine happening for many reasons, not the least of which is that it would require Trump to open himself up to the revelations that come from a lawsuit. It would also require the Supreme Court to go back on this principle, something it has never shown an interest in doing. Alternatively, Trump could try to amend the Constitution to water down the First Amendment, but he's more likely to have success building a wall to keep Canadians from crossing our northern border.

Second, Trump could persuade Congress to pass a law conditioning the receipt of federal money on states changing their libel laws to make it easier to sue the press. Congress is allowed to do this as long as it is not putting too much pressure on the states and the law is related to a federal interest. But this route is almost as unlikely as changing the Supreme Court. No one in Congress is going to have the appetite to push to change libel laws because, among other reasons, this area of the law is completely unrelated to federal interests.

In other words, there’s absolutely nothing doing here. Trump saying that he is going to "open up" libel laws or take a "strong look" at them is pure and utter nonsense that once again shows how utterly ignorant he is about basic points of American law.

[donnay]

Trump wants to be able to sue anybody who says something he doesn't like. In England it is easier to do that.

Libel laws discourage free speech. In this case, the publishers and author of that Michael Wolf book critical lied about of him.

FIFY

[pcosmar]

An accusation,, but no link..

Oh,,No's,, ensue

I had been thinking about media misrepresentations,, and NGO disinformation.

Lies really..

and about nearly every subject..

who is accountable,, and does free speech apply to deliberate lies?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

This started almost two years ago, when on the campaign trail President Trump promised, if elected, to "open up our libel laws." He was, as he still is, upset about newspapers and others in the media who "write purposely negative and horrible and false articles." He wanted, and still does, to be able to sue them "and win lots of money."





Do you have the entire passage and not just bits and pieces?

[Jamesiv1]

Trump is the only President in America's history to do the right thing regarding libel laws and free speech.

[PierzStyx]

It would take President Trump an awful lot to try to change the libel laws. It won't happen and there are too many safe guards in place, as it should be, to allow a President to do such. He was just blowing off steam, which I don't blame him with this latest piece of fiction Michael Wolff wrote. He is getting hit from all sides with lies on a daily basis.

Keep apologizing for Leviathan. It won't mean you didn't sell your birthright for porridge, but it'll make you feel better about it.

[PierzStyx]

For one thing, libel laws aren't federal, they're state.

But apparently Trump doesn't grasp that.

Of course he doesn't. The man hasn't ever read the Constitution and when someone tried he got bored and couldn't pay attention. The word TRUMP wasn't in it enough I guess.

[Swordsmyth]

This is a worthless post.

Without any source to tell us what DJTvsg is doing how are we supposed to decide whether it is good or bad?

There need to be libel laws but they shouldn't be overly restrictive, it is a delicate balance and impossible to discuss without details.

[Swordsmyth]

Of course he doesn't. The man hasn't ever read the Constitution and when someone tried he got bored and couldn't pay attention. The word TRUMP wasn't in it enough I guess.

Thank you for the Fake News update.

[PierzStyx]

Dr. Paul also repeats a Victor Hugo quote: "All the forces in the world are not so powerful as an idea whose time has come."

So should people be allowed to smear another person's name endlessly without consequences?

The adulterous pornographer would have to have a good name to smear first.

And yes, people are allowed to say what they wish. That is what "freedom of speech" is all about- the freedom for me to use speech in any way I choose and you have no power to use violence to limit me.

[Superfluous Man]

This is a worthless post.

Without any source to tell us what DJTvsg is doing how are we supposed to decide whether it is good or bad?

There need to be libel laws but they shouldn't be overly restrictive, it is a delicate balance and impossible to discuss without details.

Yes. That's all Trump was doing, trying to add a delicate balance of nuance to a complicated issue via a Twitter post. And the stupid media just needs to oversimplify everything because they don't look into it as deeply as Trump does.

Even though Trump doesn't know that the libel laws he's supposedly going to change are state matters that are outside his purview as president.

But still, aside from that, "delicate" is precisely the right word for his pontificating.

[PierzStyx]

Thank you for the Fake News update.

What are you talking about? I didn't link Breitbart or Fox News in my post.

[Swordsmyth]

Yes. That's all Trump was doing, trying to add a delicate balance of nuance to a complicated issue via a Twitter post. And the stupid media just needs to oversimplify everything because they don't look into it as deeply as Trump does.

Even though Trump doesn't know that the libel laws he's supposedly going to change are state matters that are outside his purview as president.

But still, aside from that, "delicate" is precisely the right word for his pontificating.

Are you going to link to his tweet so we can discuss it? (The ACLU article doesn't count)

In any case Trump's tweets are meaningless, he deliberately says hyperbolic things to get his enemies to run around in circles, tell me if he DOES something and we can discuss whether it is good or not.

[Superfluous Man]

Are you going to link to his tweet so we can discuss it? (The ACLU article doesn't count)

In any case Trump's tweets are meaningless, he deliberately says hyperbolic things to get his enemies to run around in circles, tell me if he DOES something and we can discuss whether it is good or not.

I take it back, this latest one apparently wasn't a tweet.

“We are going to take a strong look at our country’s libel laws, so that when somebody says something that is false and defamatory about someone, that person will have meaningful recourse in our courts,” Mr. Trump said during a public portion of a cabinet meeting in the White House.

The president added, “Our current libel laws are a sham and a disgrace and do not represent American values or American fairness.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/10/business/media/trump-libel-laws.html?_r=0

On previous occasions he has used Twitter to express his delicately honed views on this complex matter though. This article has an example from October.
https://www.npr.org/2018/01/10/577100238/trump-again-blasts-libel-laws-calling-them-as-a-sham

[Swordsmyth]

I take it back, this latest one apparently wasn't a tweet.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/10/business/media/trump-libel-laws.html?_r=0

On previous occasions he has used Twitter to express his delicately honed views on this complex matter though. This article has an example from October.
https://www.npr.org/2018/01/10/577100238/trump-again-blasts-libel-laws-calling-them-as-a-sham


“We are going to take a strong look at our country’s libel laws, so that when somebody says something that is false and defamatory about someone, that person will have meaningful recourse in our courts,” Mr. Trump said during a public portion of a cabinet meeting in the White House.

The president added, “Our current libel laws are a sham and a disgrace and do not represent American values or American fairness.”

Firstly I don't see any specifics to debate, when he makes a suggestion of what he wants changed we can discuss it.
Secondly when he says "We" he didn't define it or say that the changes would or could be made at the federal level, let me know when he tries to have a change made at the federal level or the state level.

[pcosmar]

We are going to take a strong look at our country’s libel laws, so that when somebody says something that is false and defamatory about someone, that person will have meaningful recourse in our courts,” Mr. Trump said during a public portion of a cabinet meeting in the White House.

The president added, “Our current libel laws are a sham and a disgrace and do not represent American values or American fairness.”

I honestly do not see anything wrong with that..

and there are recent news worthy headlines as example.

[Superfluous Man]

Firstly I don't see any specifics to debate.

Of course you don't. And you won't get any from Trump, which is why your remark about the delicate balance was so funny.

His only concern is shutting down criticism of himself. That's it. He has never once in his life given a moment of thought to this issue on a philosophical or legal level.

[Swordsmyth]

Of course you don't. And you won't get any from Trump, which is why your remark about the delicate balance was so funny.

His only concern is shutting down criticism of himself. That's it. He has never once in his life given a moment of thought to this issue on a philosophical or legal level.

If DJTvsg doesn't DO something then there is nothing to discuss and this is a stupid thread like I said, and my statement about the delicate balance was my position on the issue in general and was aimed at those who were saying that we shouldn't have libel laws etc.

[donnay]

The adulterous pornographer would have to have a good name to smear first.

LOL! "Adulterous pornographer." You guys are too much.


And yes, people are allowed to say what they wish. That is what "freedom of speech" is all about- the freedom for me to use speech in any way I choose and you have no power to use violence to limit me.

Along with freedom of speech, their are consequences to those who intentionally defame others. No one is talking about violence here, so don't be so melodramatic.

[nobody's_hero]

The adulterous pornographer would have to have a good name to smear first.

And yes, people are allowed to say what they wish. That is what "freedom of speech" is all about- the freedom for me to use speech in any way I choose and you have no power to use violence to limit me.

But can I sue you?

Say, if you put out a book like . . .

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51cVVI-%2BxrL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

[Zippyjuan]

Trump Lawyer letter to the publisher of Wolf's book: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/04/us/politics/trump-threatens-sue-fire-fury-publisher.html


The president’s blast at Mr. Wolff came at the end of a day in which Mr. Trump’s effort to stop publication failed. In an 11-page letter sent in the morning, a lawyer for the president said the book, “Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House,” as excerpted in a magazine article, includes false statements about Mr. Trump that “give rise to claims for libel” that could result in “substantial monetary damages and punitive damages.”

“Mr. Trump hereby demands that you immediately cease and desist from any further publication, release or dissemination of the book, the article, or any excerpts or summaries of either of them, to any person or entity, and that you issue a full and complete retraction and apology to my client as to all statements made about him in the book and article that lack competent evidentiary support,” the letter said.

Undeterred, Henry Holt and Co., the publisher, announced that instead it would make the book available for sale starting at 9 a.m. Friday rather than wait for its original release date on Tuesday.

US Supreme Court has ruled that public officials must demonstrate serious maliciousness to be able to sue for libel. Disagreeing with what was written does not reach that standard.

https://billofrightsinstitute.org/educate/educator-resources/lessons-plans/landmark-supreme-court-cases-elessons/new-york-times-v-sullivan-1964/


In a unanimous decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the New York Times. In order to prove libel, a “public official” must show that the newspaper acted “with ‘actual malice’–that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard” for truth. The Court asserted America’s “profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.” Free and open debate about the conduct of public officials, the Court reasoned, was more important than occasional, honest factual errors that might hurt or damage officials’ reputations.

[devil21]

I honestly do not see anything wrong with that..

and there are recent news worthy headlines as example.

Hence my original post. The creation of the problem by the deep state controlled media (check), the reaction by the deep state controlled President and his dumb supporters (check) and finally, a subsequent solution offered by the deep state controlled legislature (remains to be seen).

It's an ongoing agenda and Trump is playing his part in the script. Facebook announced today they're bigly changing their news feed to censor the crap out of anything they don't deem appropriate or factual. Facebook Ministry of Truth. What we're not told is that most of what the media puts out is fake news and they know it. They simply don't like their created narratives being countered or exposed.

eta: easy to assume Trump's statement was regarding the Wolff book. Wolff said he doesn't know the truth of much of the contents of his own book and much of it is recycled from media stories. Safe to say that Wolff is also controlled since the media blared about the book from the rooftops.

[nikcers]

Hence my original post. The creation of the problem by the deep state controlled media (check), the reaction by the deep state controlled President and his dumb supporters (check) and finally, a subsequent solution offered by the deep state controlled legislature (remains to be seen).

It's an ongoing agenda and Trump is playing his part in the script.

if you don't learn from history

http://i.magaimg.net/img/2bmz.jpg

[enhanced_deficit]

I fully support free specch. But to be devil's advocate, can't claims like these put in print desatbilize "stable genius" like the holder of the office of the POTUS?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2zm3KmUqJ4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2zm3KmUqJ4


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FF5DzSpunTg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FF5DzSpunTg


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOjldTiyCXQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOjldTiyCXQ

[Raginfridus]

If Hildabeast said we're seriously going to review our un American libel laws, the entire forum would be pissed. Trump's different, because he fights for the little guy. He says so. I hope he gets some good ol boys on the case straight away.

[Influenza]

If Hildabeast said we're seriously going to review our un American libel laws, the entire forum would be pissed. Trump's different, because he fights for the little guy. He says so. I hope he gets some good ol boys on the case straight away.

"I love trump more and more every day. I salivate just thinking about him" - a large portion of RPF posters