Trump to "take a strong look" at libel laws

Chris0nllyn

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
“We are going to take a strong look at our country’s libel laws so that when somebody says something that is false and defamatory about someone, that person will have meaningful recourse in our courts,” Trump said. “And if somebody says something that’s totally false and knowingly false, that the person that has been abused, defamed, libeled, will have meaningful recourse.”
Click to expand...

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/10/trump-libel-laws-2018-333705
 
Chris0nllyn

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
This_person said:
Seems reasonable.
Click to expand...

MiddleGround said:
Maybe it is what is needed to get organizations like the MSM to do some FACTUAL reporting too.
Click to expand...

Unbelievable, yet not surprising.

The statement remains concerning, though, because it displays a contempt towards First Amendment values and freedom of the press. It carelessly conflates false statements and negative coverage. It encourages the public to scorn First Amendment rights, and the public already does that enough already. It also likely encourages defamation litigation, which by its nature silences speech through the expense and stress of litigation even when the defendant prevails. For those, I condemn Trump.
Click to expand...
https://www.popehat.com/2016/11/14/lawsplainer-about-trump-opening-up-libel-laws/
 
S

Starman

New Member
This is precisely what libel laws currently look like with respect to non-public persons. Any changes to extant law for public officials run smack into 1A protections.

As usual, tRump is just grandstanding to get his base all lathered up.
 
Chris0nllyn

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
MiddleGround said:
I'm not against free speech and I am not against freedom of the press. What I AM against is the freedom of the individual and the freedom of the press to blatantly LIE in a manner that harms someone in any way.
Click to expand...

What, in the existing libel laws, prevents someone from pursuing damages from a press outlet that does that?
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
Chris0nllyn said:
What, in the existing libel laws, prevents someone from pursuing damages from a press outlet that does that?
Click to expand...

For a person in the media spotlight, like a president, it becomes incumbent upon that famous person to prove that the party defaming them knew the statements were false, made them with actual malice, or was negligent in saying or writing them. Proving these elements can be an uphill battle - if possible at all. Once one is a media figure, the rules change for some strange reason.
 
awpitt

awpitt

Main Streeter
Not sure what changes would be needed for the libel laws. If one has the facts on their side, they should have no problem.
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
tom88 said:
Isn't this already the law of the land?
Click to expand...

I think "take a look at" implies that there may be improvements that could be made to the law of the land. It's not as if he said, "you know what, we have no laws on this and we should." :shrug:
 
vraiblonde

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
You do not have a First Amendment right to defame and slander someone. That is NOT "free speech". Even when the person you're defaming is a public figure.

The reason most busy people don't chase every lie told about them is because it's expensive and time consuming. However, when it comes to the press - our supposedly legitimate news media - telling blatant lies, it should be vigorously pursued and they shouldn't be allowed to get away with it. Not any of them, no matter who their target is. And if Trump can encourage Congress to hold those lying bastards accountable, it will benefit ALL of us.
 
S

Starman

New Member
vraiblonde said:
You do not have a First Amendment right to defame and slander someone. That is NOT "free speech". Even when the person you're defaming is a public figure.

The reason most busy people don't chase every lie told about them is because it's expensive and time consuming. However, when it comes to the press - our supposedly legitimate news media - telling blatant lies, it should be vigorously pursued and they shouldn't be allowed to get away with it. Not any of them, no matter who their target is. And if Trump can encourage Congress to hold those lying bastards accountable, it will benefit ALL of us.
Click to expand...

You should seriously take a look at current libel law. It’s quite clear you haven’t.
 
Chris0nllyn

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
This_person said:
See New York Times v. Sullivan, 1964
Click to expand...

Unlike, say, Roe v. Wade, nobody's been trying to chip away at Sullivan for 52 years. It's not a matter of controversy or pushback or questioning in judicial decisions. Though it's been the subject of academic debate, even judges with philosophical and structural quarrels with Sullivan apply it without suggesting it is vulnerable. Take the late Justice Scalia, for example. Scalia thought Sullivan was wrongly decided, but routinely applied it and its progeny in cases like the ones above.1 You can go shopping for judicial candidates whose writings or decisions suggest they will overturn Roe v. Wade, but it would be extremely difficult to find ones who would reliably overturn Sullivan and its progeny. It's an outlying view — not chemtrail-level, but several firm strides in that direction. Nor is the distinction between fact and opinion controversial — at least not from conservatives. There's been some back and forth over whether opinion is absolutely protected (no) or whether it might be defamatory if it implies provably false facts (yes) but there's no conservative movement to make insults and hyperbole subject to defamation analysis.
Click to expand...
https://www.popehat.com/2016/11/14/lawsplainer-about-trump-opening-up-libel-laws/
 
Chris0nllyn

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
vraiblonde said:
You do not have a First Amendment right to defame and slander someone. That is NOT "free speech". Even when the person you're defaming is a public figure.

The reason most busy people don't chase every lie told about them is because it's expensive and time consuming. However, when it comes to the press - our supposedly legitimate news media - telling blatant lies, it should be vigorously pursued and they shouldn't be allowed to get away with it. Not any of them, no matter who their target is. And if Trump can encourage Congress to hold those lying bastards accountable, it will benefit ALL of us.
Click to expand...

Trump complains about the press being able to run "hit pieces" and purposely "negative and horrible and false" articles. Part of that is true and part is false. The press can absolutely run hit pieces and negative and horrible articles. We don't have sedition laws any more, and it's not illegal to be biased or "unfair" in a philosophical sense. Only false statements of fact can be defamatory. Arguments, characterizations, insults, and aspersions can't be, unless they are premised on explicit or implied false statements of fact.
Click to expand...
https://www.popehat.com/2016/11/14/lawsplainer-about-trump-opening-up-libel-laws/
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
Chris0nllyn said:
https://www.popehat.com/2016/11/14/lawsplainer-about-trump-opening-up-libel-laws/
Click to expand...

"provably false"


For example, TranSap comes on here daily and says "Trump is an idiot", while Cuomo on CNN claims Trump is a racist. These are not provably false, because they are opinion. But, Sullivan requires the accuser that those things are slanderous and libelous to prove damage. So, prove it.

Meanwhile, I can say Hillary is, in my opinion, entirely unfit to serve in any capacity based on the FBI's assertion that she knew or should have known (based on her position) that what she was doing is inappropriate and illegal (and then link the FBI director's statements that say exactly that). THAT is defamatory, but no libelous, because it is based on the FBI director's statement, and presumably provable by their investigation (any reasonable person would think so). But, for months of TV personalities saying Trump definitively said he thinks all Mexicans are racist is demonstrably untrue, yet really would never win in a lawsuit.
 
Chris0nllyn

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
This_person said:
"provably false"


For example, TranSap comes on here daily and says "Trump is an idiot", while Cuomo on CNN claims Trump is a racist. These are not provably false, because they are opinion. But, Sullivan requires the accuser that those things are slanderous and libelous to prove damage. So, prove it.

Meanwhile, I can say Hillary is, in my opinion, entirely unfit to serve in any capacity based on the FBI's assertion that she knew or should have known (based on her position) that what she was doing is inappropriate and illegal (and then link the FBI director's statements that say exactly that). THAT is defamatory, but no libelous, because it is based on the FBI director's statement, and presumably provable by their investigation (any reasonable person would think so). But, for months of TV personalities saying Trump definitively said he thinks all Mexicans are racist is demonstrably untrue, yet really would never win in a lawsuit.
Click to expand...

What you said about Clinton isn't libelous because it's your opinion (you having info to back up your opinion has no bearing on the legality of the opinion itself), and you're still allowed to have that in this country. This is a very slippery slope, imo. Imagine Obama changing these laws and Trump, Arpaio, Hijinx, and whomever else talking about the whole "birther" movement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top