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

originally posted by: seeker1963

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!

First of all, unless those are your words, please link your sources ... failing to do so is considered plagiarism.

Second of all ... what in the world are you trying to argue?

The topic here is TRUMP'S PROMISE TO END FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS FOR THE PRESS.

Discuss.

I am speaking of the first ten articles of the Bill of Rights that make up the Constitution.

negative

Tough, get over it.

and horrible

Tough, get over it.

and false articles

Already illegal.


How some of you don't see where this is going is laughable.

Laffable.

Larfable.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Laws against Defamation, Slander and Libel apply to everyone in this Country , including the News Media . Freedom of the Press does not mean Freedom to Violate those Laws . A Simple Truth you must Clearly Realize .

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
I am speaking of the first ten articles of the Bill of Rights that make up the Constitution.

Amendments.

There is only VII Articles.

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
I am speaking of the first ten articles of the Bill of Rights that make up the Constitution.

Yes, I realize the rather unique nomenclature that you are choosing to use ... but as ratified, the Bill of Rights is the first ten AMENDMENTS to the Constitution not Articles ...

The term "Articles" was part of the Joint Resolution of Congress I mentioned earlier, but the AMENDMENTS are just that.

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Gryphon66

Laws against Defamation, Slander and Libel apply to everyone in this Country , including the News Media . Freedom of the Press does not mean Freedom to Violate those Laws . A Simple Truth you must Clearly Realize .

Yes, the laws do apply to everyone.

No, the Press doesn't get to break the laws.

Neither of those truths has anything at all to do with what Mr. Trump plainly said in his speech.

In case you missed it ..

Trump said that under his administration, if the New York Times “writes a hit piece, which is total disgrace, or when the Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they’re totally protected.'

“You see, with me, they’re not protected,’’ he said.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
I am speaking of the first ten articles of the Bill of Rights that make up the Constitution.

Amendments.
There is only VII Articles.

Seven articles within the Constitution. Then you have the Bill of Rights that start with 1-10 Articles. Every Article written after this is called an amendment to the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
I am speaking of the first ten articles of the Bill of Rights that make up the Constitution.

Amendments.
There is only VII Articles.

Seven articles within the Constitution. Then you have the Bill of Rights that start with 1-10 Articles. Every Article written after this is called an amendment to the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

Some texts do name the Amendments as Articles.

But in that case, Articles I-XXVII follow the Articles I-VII that make up the Constitution ... otherwise known as AMENDMENTS.

What point are you trying to make here?

The "Bill of Rights" is the First Ten Amendments that were ratified with the Constitution.

The Bill of Rights (Amendments) does not come BEFORE the Constitution's Articles THAT CREATE the body of the text being AMENDED.

ARTICLES IN ADDITION TO, AND AMENDMENT OF, THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PROPOSED BY CONGRESS, AND RATIFIED BY THE LEGISLATURES OF THE SEVERAL STATES, PURSUANT TO THE FIFTH ARTICLE OF THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION
[/quote

Official Publication: US Constitution As AMENDED

edit on 28-2-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Jeez

a reply to: Gryphon66

He would love to be a tyrant. Don't you get that impression?

If he could, he'd abolish Congress/Supreme Court, right along with the Fourth Estate. Of this, I have little doubt. The whole checks and balances hold little appeal to him.

a reply to: ausername

The possibility exists, doesn't it?

One persons satire is anothers libel.

a reply to: neo96

As if that at all nullifies the fact that the right lies and slanders all the time, even to their own.

a reply to: Gryphon66
The first 10 articles of The Bill of Rights was originally written within the Constitution's 7, any afterwards are amendments to both. The first 10 'amendments/articles' were ratified 1789. I suppose you could call all ten articles of The Bill of Rights an amendment; but in spirit NOT SO. The 11th amendment was proposed March 4th 1794.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Turkey is just one example I can think of where the press have recently been arrested, well hell even everyday people, for criticizing the gov't and it's leader. And they're our biggest NATO ally.

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
a reply to: Gryphon66
The first 10 articles of The Bill of Rights was originally written within the Constitution's 7, any afterwards are amendments to both. The first 10 'amendments/articles' were ratified 1789. I suppose you could call all ten articles of The Bill of Rights an amendment; but in spirit NOT SO. The 11th amendment was proposed March 4th 1794.

The First Ten Amendments were ratified at the same time (in most cases) as the Constitution itself. They were not "written within" the Constitution. If you wish to refer to the First Amendment as Article I (Amendment) I don't care.

Does any of that change what the First Amendment says? Does it affect at all what Mr. Trump says about not protecting the Freedom of the Press?

If the answer is no ... let's move on.

originally posted by: ausername
a reply to: MystikMushroom

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

The thread isn't about Obama, it's about Trump.

In any case, Obama hasn't tried to stifle free speech or make it easier for people to be sued or locked in jail for criticizing him. Trump doesn't like criticism, his ego just can't handle it. Obama? Obama has had to endure more negative attacks than any other POTUS in history, and he's not moving to strip anyone from doing that.

a reply to: Gryphon66
We are saying the same thing; yes lets move on.

I'm certainly no leftist, but if Obama did this....Wow.

I can't believe anyone would think it's okay for something like this to happen.

Ron Paul was one million percent correct when he called Trump a tyrant. This is literally the stuff of dictatorships.

a reply to: MystikMushroom
Trump will have to realize, that as President, he is going to get the praise, when things go right for the country and ultimately the blame as people will look at the President when things go wrong, or when there is a policy they disagree with and so forth. It means that he will have to have a thick skin and let them have their say. In the words of Judge Judy: Sticks and Stones.

To try to gut the very freedom of speech is not only a horrible idea, but will clog up the judicial system for years to come, until the protections are re-established again. Think about it, more and more groups out there are finding offense in just about everything and it ends up in print. By doing what he is suggesting means this:

Politicians can be sued by say Muslims, for being demonized. Church's and especially televangelist and those who put such out on various media would be opened up for such lawsuits by any number of groups, and especially the LGBT community who they tend to demonize and slander.

It would be chaos and ultimately cause more and more problems than solve anything.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: ausername

The possibility exists, doesn't it? One persons satire is anothers libel.

The Funster creators/writers/actors of "Saturday Night Live" will be in BIG trouble. I can imagine Trump suing NBC over satire copyrights (you needed to clear it with my people first). I was confounded; at one of his rallies, I saw no pitchforks being waved about in the audience because they were disguised as "TRUMP IS THE GOOD NEWS" signs.