quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

At a rally today in Texas, Donald Trump said that if elected president, he would push to significantly change libel laws so he and others can sue journalists who write stories he finds “dishonest,” apparently not concerned with the Constitution’s First Amendment protections of free speech and the freedom of the press.

Trump told his supporters, who have become notorious for threatening journalists and demonstrators, that he intends to “open up the libel laws” in order to file lawsuits against reporters — particularly from the Washington Post and the New York Times — and “win money.”
- See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/donald-trump-vows-change-libel-laws-sue-journalists#sthash.QfM9p2eJ.dpuf



um, I suppose since we the people dont have freedom of religion why should the press? Its not like investigative journalism exists anymore.

I dont like the 1st issues but I luv the can of worms it would open up [8D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


I guess, in a way, it's no different than Slick Willy's attempt at ending anything he considered to be "hate speech" (any commentary that didn't figuratively tongue his asshole).



Michael

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


I guess, in a way, it's no different than Slick Willy's attempt at ending anything he considered to be "hate speech" (any commentary that didn't figuratively tongue his asshole).



Michael

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
At a rally today in Texas, Donald Trump said that if elected president, he would push to significantly change libel laws so he and others can sue journalists who write stories he finds “dishonest,” apparently not concerned with the Constitution’s First Amendment protections of free speech and the freedom of the press.
Trump told his supporters, who have become notorious for threatening journalists and demonstrators, that he intends to “open up the libel laws” in order to file lawsuits against reporters — particularly from the Washington Post and the New York Times — and “win money.”
- See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/donald-trump-vows-change-libel-laws-sue-journalists#sthash.QfM9p2eJ.dpuf
um, I suppose since we the people dont have freedom of religion why should the press? Its not like investigative journalism exists anymore.
I dont like the 1st issues but I luv the can of worms it would open up [8D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
First Amendment.
Pesky little thing.

quote:

“One of the things I’m going to do if I win, and I hope I do and we’re certainly leading, is I’m going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposefully negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money,” Trump said. “We’re going to open up those libel laws.”

quote:

What the victim must prove to establish that defamation occurred
The law of defamation varies from state to state, but there are some generally accepted rules. If you believe you are have been "defamed," to prove it you usually have to show there's been a statement that is all of the following:


• published
  
• false
  
• injurious
  
• unprivileged

quote:

Finally, to qualify as a defamatory statement, the offending statement must be "unprivileged." Under some circumstances, you cannot sue someone for defamation even if they make a statement that can be proved false. For example, witnesses who testify falsely in court or at a deposition can't be sued. (Although witnesses who testify to something they know is false could theoretically be prosecuted for perjury.) Lawmakers have decided that in these and other situations, which are considered "privileged," free speech is so important that the speakers should not be constrained by worries that they will be sued for defamation. Lawmakers themsleves [sic] also enjoy this privilege: They aren't liable for statements made in the legislative chamber or in official materials, even if they say or write things that would otherwise be defamatory.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

But, what is this "unprivileged" test?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

The article goes on to state that public figures have another test that must be met before defamation can occur. They have to prove that the defamer acted with malice.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
At a rally today in Texas, Donald Trump said that if elected president, he would push to significantly change libel laws so he and others can sue journalists who write stories he finds “dishonest,” apparently not concerned with the Constitution’s First Amendment protections of free speech and the freedom of the press.
Trump told his supporters, who have become notorious for threatening journalists and demonstrators, that he intends to “open up the libel laws” in order to file lawsuits against reporters — particularly from the Washington Post and the New York Times — and “win money.”
- See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/donald-trump-vows-change-libel-laws-sue-journalists#sthash.QfM9p2eJ.dpuf
um, I suppose since we the people dont have freedom of religion why should the press? Its not like investigative journalism exists anymore.
I dont like the 1st issues but I luv the can of worms it would open up [8D]

What's wrong with libel laws now? It's illegal. You can "win money" if you can prove it's libel. If he just going to ramp up the damages?

Had candidate Obama not won in 2008 or 2012, and he could prove that the "Nazi" Obama or "Joker" Obama pictures were damaging to his campaign, could he sue for libel?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
But, what is this "unprivileged" test?

Absolute privileges apply to the following proceedings and circumstances:

Judicial proceedings
Legislative proceedings
Some executive statements and publications
Publications between spouses
Publications required by law

Conditional privileges apply to the following types of communications:

A statement that is made for the protection of the publisher's interest
A statement that is made for the protection of the interests of a third person
A statement that is made for the protection of common interest
A statement that is made to ensure the well-being of a family member
A statement that is made where the person making the communication believes that the public interest requires communication of the statement to a public officer or other official
A statement that is made by an inferior state officer who is not entitled to an absolute privilege
- See more at: http://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/defenses-to-libel-and-slander.html#sthash.ofjTemV9.dpuf

quote:

priviledges and immunities, the state steals your rights by writing law that undermines and suspends your rights .
Travel is a right reserved by the constitution, (through the AoC) however the gubblemint removes those rights from you if you wish to use a a vehicle to travel, first within their jurisdiction by regulating 'commercial drivers' then by slipping in a requirement for everyone to register as a driver.

quote:

the press is mostly a useless gubblemint mouthpiece and agenda propaganda pusher today anyway.
freedom of press does not exist
the requirements for libel/slander like most everything else judicial needs a complete over haul, with someone watching the backs of we the people as well as they watch the backs of they the gubmint

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
At a rally today in Texas, Donald Trump said that if elected president, he would push to significantly change libel laws so he and others can sue journalists who write stories he finds “dishonest,” apparently not concerned with the Constitution’s First Amendment protections of free speech and the freedom of the press.
Trump told his supporters, who have become notorious for threatening journalists and demonstrators, that he intends to “open up the libel laws” in order to file lawsuits against reporters — particularly from the Washington Post and the New York Times — and “win money.”
- See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/donald-trump-vows-change-libel-laws-sue-journalists#sthash.QfM9p2eJ.dpuf
um, I suppose since we the people dont have freedom of religion why should the press? Its not like investigative journalism exists anymore.
I dont like the 1st issues but I luv the can of worms it would open up [8D]

What's wrong with libel laws now? It's illegal. You can "win money" if you can prove it's libel. If he just going to ramp up the damages?
Had candidate Obama not won in 2008 or 2012, and he could prove that the "Nazi" Obama or "Joker" Obama pictures were damaging to his campaign, could he sue for libel?

on a side note, beacuse of these privileges and immunities we cant even sue for the blatantly 'proven' false information nor can we obtain structural failure information through foia for data put out by NIST the investigating agency which damages the whole nation. How can we as individuals expect to sue any of these agencies successfully when malice must be proven? Hell they do it as a 'matter of course'!

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
First Amendment.
Pesky little thing.

Aren't there libel laws? If so, then libel isn't fully protected by the First Amendment.

quote:

“One of the things I’m going to do if I win, and I hope I do and we’re certainly leading, is I’m going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposefully negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money,” Trump said. “We’re going to open up those libel laws.”

Defamation (covers libel and slander)

quote:

What the victim must prove to establish that defamation occurred
The law of defamation varies from state to state, but there are some generally accepted rules. If you believe you are have been "defamed," to prove it you usually have to show there's been a statement that is all of the following:


• published
  
• false
  
• injurious
  
• unprivileged

If a journalist writes something, it meets the test of being published. The Donald included that the writing is false, so that test is met. If the writings are "purposefully negative and horrible," that's most likely easier to prove that they were injurious. But, what is this "unprivileged" test?

quote:

Finally, to qualify as a defamatory statement, the offending statement must be "unprivileged." Under some circumstances, you cannot sue someone for defamation even if they make a statement that can be proved false. For example, witnesses who testify falsely in court or at a deposition can't be sued. (Although witnesses who testify to something they know is false could theoretically be prosecuted for perjury.) Lawmakers have decided that in these and other situations, which are considered "privileged," free speech is so important that the speakers should not be constrained by worries that they will be sued for defamation. Lawmakers themsleves [sic] also enjoy this privilege: They aren't liable for statements made in the legislative chamber or in official materials, even if they say or write things that would otherwise be defamatory.

The article goes on to state that public figures have another test that must be met before defamation can occur. They have to prove that the defamer acted with malice. While that makes it much more difficult for someone like Trump to win a defamation lawsuit, his statement "...when they write purposefully negative and horrible and false articles..." seems to include that malice aspect, too.

So, how is he going to open them up? Is he going to push for relaxed rules in what constitutes libel? Is he going to make it easier to include the employer/publisher/editor in those suits? Is he gong to crank up the monetary awards?

quote:

He can scream libel -- but only if there's libel. Otherwise, for a President to sue, is political censorship. First Amendment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
He can scream libel -- but only if there's libel. Otherwise, for a President to sue, is political censorship. First Amendment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice
My key concern is that the prospect of defending themselves in lengthy and expensive litigation could spur journalists (or their publishers) to self-censorship.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

He can scream libel -- but only if there's libel. Otherwise, for a President to sue, is political censorship. First Amendment.

My key concern is that the prospect of defending themselves in lengthy and expensive litigation could spur journalists (or their publishers) to self-censorship.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

He can scream libel -- but only if there's libel. Otherwise, for a President to sue, is political censorship. First Amendment.