Donald Trump wants to make it easier to sue the press

[Subyman]

It does get annoying seeing articles nearly flat out lie in their article titles or draw conclusions from very thin evidence. I'm not sure the government is where that needs to be addressed though. It could be interesting to see if news organizations had to stand behind their accusations or incur a monetary damage from the party they blasted, if it would clean up a lot of the ridiculous click bait and misinformation. On the flip side, it could have a silencing effect on investigative journalism which doesn't always provide clear answers but begins the process of exposing corruption or wrongdoing.

 

[senseamp]

We have to.

 

[Thebobo]

Works for Putin.

haha so true

 

[BoberFett]

Trump should get a sex change, then he'd be above reproach. Anything bad said about Donna Trump would be a hate crime.

 

[HomerJS]

Go for it Donny. Fox News won't last 2 seconds. When they called Obama a defacto terrorist, instant court case.

 

[shortylickens]

Trump should get a sex change, then he'd be above reproach. Anything bad said about Donna Trump would be a hate crime.

Hows that working out for Kaitlyn?


Wait, pretty good actually.
:hmm:

 

[MongGrel]

Hows that working out for Kaitlyn?


Wait, pretty good actually.
:hmm:

The world is odd.

It always was though, just a lot more is shown in public these days.

 

[Subyman]

Donald wouldn't last long under his new laws. He'd be sued into oblivion for the things he's said.

 

[ivwshane]

Donald wouldn't last long under his new laws. He'd be sued into oblivion for the things he's said.

Not true at all! Trump is simply repeating things he's heard others say. That's totally ok. It's kinda like how there are people out there who are saying trump fucked his daughter, which I don't know if it's true but that's what people are saying. That's not libel because I never said trump fucked his daughter, I've heard others say it but I never said it. What kind of guy would do that? You'd have to be some mentally unstable person to do that. But I always thought trump seemed unstable to me so maybe it's something he could have done, I don't know.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

It does get annoying seeing articles nearly flat out lie in their article titles or draw conclusions from very thin evidence. I'm not sure the government is where that needs to be addressed though. It could be interesting to see if news organizations had to stand behind their accusations or incur a monetary damage from the party they blasted, if it would clean up a lot of the ridiculous click bait and misinformation. On the flip side, it could have a silencing effect on investigative journalism which doesn't always provide clear answers but begins the process of exposing corruption or wrongdoing.

In a perfect world. In reality people filing a lawsuit would do it in the most friendly area for them the they'd sue anyone & everyone to control their image. Similar to how Tom Cruise sues any publication that implies he is gay. There would be much bickering over what is fact and what is fantasy. New publishers would then start making vague claims & reports.

Freedom of information is far too dangerous to mess around with.

 

[Subyman]

In a perfect world. In reality people filing a lawsuit would do it in the most friendly area for them the they'd sue anyone & everyone to control their image. Similar to how Tom Cruise sues any publication that implies he is gay. There would be much bickering over what is fact and what is fantasy. New publishers would then start making vague claims & reports.

Freedom of information is far too dangerous to mess around with.

I agree. While I dislike the misinformation that is spread, a slide into a dystopian future is far worse.

 

[Greenman]

Fuck dumbass trump supporters!

It's that kind of insightful thinking that makes P&N what it is.

 

[Greenman]

On the flip side, it could have a silencing effect on investigative journalism which doesn't always provide clear answers but begins the process of exposing corruption or wrongdoing.

I wasn't aware that there was any investigative journalism done anymore. It's generally innuendo and sound bites.
Most of what passes as journalism is simply the desire to damage someone they disagree with. Dirt is what they want, hearsay and unnamed sources are the shield they get to hide behind. Facts are regularly omitted from a story to achieve the desired emotional impact. What passes for journalism is in fact rumor mongering.

Way back in the unenlightened dark ages when I went to school, I was taught that the fundamentals of journalism were who what when where and why. Speculation was never on the list.

 

[MagickMan]

I'm actually OK with that. Mostly because the press these days is not an information service, but an entertainment service. They should not be given special consideration if thats how they wanna be. Should get treated like everyone else.

Have to agree, there. We do need to strengthen libel and defamation laws. The "news" isn't the news anymore, it's entertainment and/or propaganda. In essence, the major outlets are making news, not reporting it. As much as I despise Trump, this isn't a bad idea as long as it isn't abused (though that's likely, at least at first).

 

[brycejones]

Have to agree, there. We do need to strengthen libel and defamation laws. The "news" isn't the news anymore, it's entertainment and/or propaganda. In essence, the major outlets are making news, not reporting it. As much as I despise Trump, this isn't a bad idea as long as it isn't abused (though that's likely, at least at first).

Gamergate? Interesting that you appear to be supporting tighter restrictions on speech while complaining about others trying to shout you down.

 

[zinfamous]

Have to agree, there. We do need to strengthen libel and defamation laws. The "news" isn't the news anymore, it's entertainment and/or propaganda. In essence, the major outlets are making news, not reporting it. As much as I despise Trump, this isn't a bad idea as long as it isn't abused (though that's likely, at least at first).

Libel laws are fine as they are. Trump has problems wtih this because he has no standing to sue anyone for libel...because the claims against him are actually true.

Yeah, a lot of the news and reporting out there is trash, but Trump simply wants to silence those that offend him. Shocking from such patriot defenders of the constitution, that they would get in lock step behind their Messiah to curtail the 1st for being "offended."

I think a lot of you would be fans of a chump like Berlusconi--same kind of mindless douchebag, generally loathed by his own country, and completely fine with silencing critics, simply for investigating their actions and reporting the truth. The only reason Trump blusters about this is because he's too thin-skinned to absorb the kind of hate that he spews.

Imagine if something like this passes (not that he would have that authority as POTUS), and none of you could bitch and complain about government, a black man in the whitehouse, anything that offends you--simply because the one that offends doesn't like what you have to say.

You're all a bunch of brain-dead simple people, perfectly fine to accept the end of personal freedoms as long as "the right person" suggests that it's a good idea.

 

[Subyman]

I wasn't aware that there was any investigative journalism done anymore. It's generally innuendo and sound bites.
Most of what passes as journalism is simply the desire to damage someone they disagree with. Dirt is what they want, hearsay and unnamed sources are the shield they get to hide behind. Facts are regularly omitted from a story to achieve the desired emotional impact. What passes for journalism is in fact rumor mongering.

Way back in the unenlightened dark ages when I went to school, I was taught that the fundamentals of journalism were who what when where and why. Speculation was never on the list.

There is good stuff if you get away from the cable news channels. I highly recommend a series called Vice on HBO.

 

[Spungo]

I'm with Trump on this one. Our media is a disgrace. Knowingly lying about things and misleading the public should open the door for them to be sued into the ground.

Most countries don't allow lying on TV. This is the reason Canadians are nothing like Americans. The bullshit lying attack ads we see on American TV, such as the time Mitt Romney's crew said Obama removed all strings attached to welfare, are illegal in Canada. Those are completely legal here. Romney would probably be facing jail time if he were in Canada.
Politifact list of Romney lies

Libel laws are fine as they are. Trump has problems wtih this because he has no standing to sue anyone for libel...because the claims against him are actually true.

Such as? That bald Canadian fellow did an excellent video on this topic
untruths about Donald Trump
He shows what Trump actually said then shows what media said Trump said. It's lie after lie after lie. It should be legal to sue people for libel and slander when they destroy someone's reputation through lying. It's bullshit that the press is given a free pass. You're allowed to lie about people as long as you work for the right people?

Then again, I'm one of those liberals who thinks the punishment for false accusations should be death. The system that allows the media to lie about people, thereby allowing the media to sell itself to the highest bidder (Hillary Clinton aka Goldman Sachs), is the same system that allows women to file fake rape and domestic abuse accusations and face absolutely no prison time when those accusations are proven to be false.

 

[HomerJS]

Fox skirts around the outright lying accusation by...

"Some people are saying"...insert lie here

"Baldface lie" followed by question mark. ex "President spending $200 million/day on a flight to India?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Then again, I'm one of those liberals who thinks the punishment for false accusations should be death. The system that allows the media to lie about people, thereby allowing the media to sell itself to the highest bidder (Hillary Clinton aka Goldman Sachs), is the same system that allows women to file fake rape and domestic abuse accusations and face absolutely no prison time when those accusations are proven to be false.

No, I'm pretty sure those are two fairly distinct systems. What is the standard for proving that a person knowingly made a false accusation, versus simply a wrong or misinformed one? How would you go about executing reporters for not sufficiently connecting Hillary and Goldman Sachs?

 

[Art&Science]

http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/26/media/donald-trump-libel-laws/index.html

What is remarkable about this is that this is an issue which is not relevant for 99,999% of common folks. Because who needs to worry about having a "hit piece" in the NY Times? You? Me?

It's something he came up with solely because it affects himself- a man who thinks that his image is the most important thing before anything else and who goes so far as to make this a campaign subject and then a law.

It's a nice example for knowing how it looks in his mind, where this entire election circus seems to be "THE TRUMP SHOW"...with him, the person, as the center.

Is he even aware of what "being president of the US" actually means...I am wondering...

Any why isn't it relevant? The press lies to us, basically non-stop. You don't think that has an affect on people? The press cannot be held criminally accountable for lying to us (mostly) so why not sue them when they obviously fabricate?

Anyone who has spent the last 15 years bitching about Fox news should have ZERO problem with this.

Oh, you're against it because Trump. I get it.... :/

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Give some recent examples of "obvious fabrication" that you believe merit lawsuits.

 

[Spungo]

No, I'm pretty sure those are two fairly distinct systems. What is the standard for proving that a person knowingly made a false accusation, versus simply a wrong or misinformed one? How would you go about executing reporters for not sufficiently connecting Hillary and Goldman Sachs?

In the case of mattress girl, text messages clearly show that she was the one demanding sex. When the guy refused to sleep with her, she filed accused him of rape. After being caught lying about the whole thing, she claimed her conspiracy to destroy the life of another human being was just a form of art and should therefore be covered by free speech.

It's the exact same argument used to justify legalized bribery. Bribery was officially made legal in 1976 when it was ruled that bribery counts as free speech as is therefore protected by the constitution.
Buckley v. Valeo

What isn't covered by free speech? Am I allowed to pour gasoline on someone and set them on fire as a form of free speech?

 

[MagickMan]

Gamergate? Interesting that you appear to be supporting tighter restrictions on speech while complaining about others trying to shout you down.

#Gamergate started over the press defaming and lying their asses off, it still does it to this day, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

 

[SP33Demon]

He can't just change libel laws whose scope have been constructed according to SCOTUS interpretations of the First Amendment (See NTY v. Sullivan, quoted above). If he changes them in any way that directly contradicts prior rulings, it'll likely be shot down. Even with how partisan the SCOTUS can be, their rulings tend to favor an expansive interpretation of the First Amendment, including even in cases where they're wrong like Citizens United.

Ahem, he is going to be appointing someone to the SCOTUS.