Trump says he'll 'open up' libel laws if he's elected - USA Today

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: seeker1963

So you're in favor of Mr. Trump's getting rid of those nasty protections for the mainstream media then?
AKA The First Amendment.Fair enough.

Not an amendment; an article.

Okay, you've got me. Which Article of the Constitution enforces a Free Press?

The first one; that includes freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, freedom of religious practice.

You're talking about the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

Not the Articles I-VII ... that set up our government.

As ratified, the 1789 Joint Resolution of Congress Proposing 12 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution was adjusted to Amendments I - X

Sounds like something a dictator would do in order to stifle free speech and maintain a stranglehold over the people.

No criticizing dear leader!

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Wish I had a buck for every time almost the exact same was said about Obama.

a reply to: seeker1963

Perhaps you should reflect on the actual words of the First Amendment ...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

As far as the rest ... please. Educate myself? I'm not the topic.

Please address the implications of Mr. Trump's promise to do away with a good portion of the First Amendment ... thanks.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

It does, doesn't it?

Remarkably similar to the actions taken by his idol, Mussolini. Ooooh, was that libelous?

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
Sounds like something a dictator would do in order to stifle free speech and maintain a stranglehold over the people.

No criticizing dear leader!

How do you think the headlines would be different if Mr. Obama had ever said anything even SLIGHTLY along these lines? LOL.

It's the rampant, gut-wrenching hypocrisy of it all ...

a reply to: seagull

Careful seagull ...

Remember 'zey have veys' of making you compliant.

LOL

I guess Trump critics missed the free speech zones under the current despot in chief.

And all those 'gun' free zones.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I'll start here:

1. The President of the United States doesn't "make laws" remember?

El Presidente Trump will!

2. The First Amendment guarantees Freedom of the Press ... not Freedom of the Press That Kisses Trump's rump.

Trump will change that.

3. Put as succinctly as possible ... What in The holy French Onion Dip is the guy thinking??

Well, if Trump is elected President that means he is in charge, so of course he can change anything he wants to.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I'll go down slandering him...I mean discussing his myriad short-comings as a politician.

a reply to: Gryphon66

The more that the politicians speak the more we can either be amazed or shocked by the ideas that come out of their mouths.

But after thinking about this, and this should be interesting, is that Trump is proposing. To make it easier to sue someone on what they say in print or via the media. And the more I think about it, the more that this becomes a can of worms that would break the legal system in a way that they would not be prepared for. Can you think of any group or groups that major politicians or public officials have demonized or disparaged in the past and currently, that could lose such a case?

So if he does manages to get such through the legislative branch and survive the courts, watch out, the circus will begin and those who are seeking to be protected may find those protections disappearing.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Gryphon66

I'll go down slandering him...I mean discussing his myriad short-comings as a politician.

And I'll die for your right to do so.

In print, or otherwise.

a reply to: neo96

No, actually, this Trump critic did not miss those. I think you'll see that I am just as critical of those.

Hang on, does this mean satire and parody could be considered libelous?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: seeker1963

Perhaps you should reflect on the actual words of the First Amendment ...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

As far as the rest ... please. Educate myself? I'm not the topic.

Please address the implications of Mr. Trump's promise to do away with a good portion of the First Amendment ... thanks.

Simple!

Why do we have laws that prevent someone from maliciously saying something untrue about some one else that may cause harm to them or their lives, either physically or mentally because that lie changed the persons life?

How much collective harm does the media cause to we the people for telling us lies? Do those lies promote how divided we have become as a country?

You can argue more with me if you choose, but it is pointless for me to reply to you. I do not want to be lied to by anyone! Fool me once shame on....................... sorry, lies are lies!

originally posted by: hellobruce

Well, if Trump is elected President that means he is in charge, so of course he can change anything he wants to.

I'm not sure after the word's meaning has been so dramatically altered in the last decade or so ...

But doesn't that sound an awful lot like a "tyrant" to you?

Does to me.

a reply to: seeker1963

Argue with you about what?

You're either for our Constitution and the rule-of-law ... or you're not.

I am. Are you?

originally posted by: seeker1963
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: seeker1963

seeker1963: The first amendment protects free speech! Not those dishonest enough to use it to disparage others unfairly! Perhaps you should read some of the case law? Regardless, it's ridiculous that you would even argue with me over "expecting to be told the truth"! I even provided you a start to educate yourself........hmmmmm

First amendment to what? This is an Amendment to the Constitution (article 11) "Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to any suit in law or equity; commence or prosecute against one of the United States by citizens of another state or by citizens or subjects of a foreign state". This has no thing to do with free speech.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: neo96

No, actually, this Trump critic did not miss those. I think you'll see that I am just as critical of those.

I noticed.

What I don't get is. The current administration made lying 'legal'.

If elected Trump says it should be illegal. Of course that IF he could get someone to introduce the legislation.

IF it passed by a majority in the House, and IF it passed the majority in the senate, If Trump gets elected, and IF the Scotus doesn't shoot it down.

A whole lot of IF's there.

What is though.

U.S. Repeals Propaganda Ban, Spreads Government-Made News to Americans

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: seeker1963

Argue with you about what?

You're either for our Constitution and the rule-of-law ... or you're not.

I am. Are you?

slander

n. oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed. Slander is a civil wrong (tort) and can be the basis for a lawsuit. Damages (payoff for worth) for slander may be limited to actual (special) damages unless there is malicious intent, since such damages are usually difficult to specify and harder to prove. Some statements such as an untrue accusation of having committed a crime, having a loathsome disease, or being unable to perform one's occupation are treated as slander per se since the harm and malice are obvious, and therefore usually result in general and even punitive damage recovery by the person harmed. Words spoken over the air on television or radio are treated as libel (written defamation) and not slander on the theory that broadcasting reaches a large audience as much if not more than printed publications.

Have fun!