Donald Trump pledges to curb press freedom through libel laws

[yuiyoshida]

Donald Trump has pledged to change the libel laws in a way that could undermine the first amendment and the freedom of the press.

Speaking at a rally in Fort Worth, Texas, on Friday, shortly after accepting an endorsement from New Jersey governor Chris Christie, Trump pledged if elected president to “open up our libel laws so when [newspapers] write purposely negative stories … we can sue them and make lots of money”.

This move, he said, would mean that “when the New York Times or the Washington Post writes a hit piece, we can sue them”.

Since the American revolution, freedom of the press has been a key principle in American public life, with truth long established as an absolute defense to any accusation of libel.

The first amendment states that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press”. It is a foundation stone of democracy in the United States.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/26/trump-pledges-curb-press-freedom-libel-laws-first-amendment

[bkkyosemite]

1. Dictator

[PoliticAverse]

2. Will the media now turn on him? n/t

[Rex]

3. We already do that privately, why would we need the government to do it?

So he will follow his own ego on domestic policy? I wonder which company The Don would go after first? He must know that a lot of fanatics love him. That is right up their ally.

[spanone]

4. he's one scary mofo

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. Good luck with that, Donald.

Even the current Supreme Court won't stand for that kind of bullshit.

[Warren DeMontague]

6. This should come as an overdue wakeup call to the anti-1st Amendment people here

Or the people who regard it as a nuisance, rather than a cornerstone of liberty.


But I wont hold my breath.

[Archae]

7. Let's start with Faux "news."

"Oh that's different!"

But after Fox, then sue WND, NewsMax, Gateway Pundit, etc.

[Maeve]

8. For what it's worth, Trumpenator can't be defamed

Claimant is incapable of further defamation – e.g., the claimant's position in the community is so poor that defamation could not do further damage to the plaintiff. Such a claimant could be said to be "libel-proof", since in most jurisdictions, actual damage is an essential element for a libel claim. Essentially, the defense is that the person had such a bad reputation before the libel, that no further damage could possibly have been caused by the making of the statement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#Defenses

You can't defame crap--it's already too low to insult. (Yeah, Il Donald, you are crap! So sue me)