Exactly as libel is defined now you are correct. Criticism is not libel. Libel requires that what is said is incorrect and that the person making the statement knew it to be incorrect when they made it. However what he wants to do is change those laws so that he can claim libel if they criticize him or write a negative story about him. Which the quotes show. You know:
“We’re going to open up those libels laws,” he added. “So that when The New York Times writes a hit piece, which is a total disgrace, or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money.”
If you want to claim otherwise why would he be advocating changing libel laws when they already protect folks from knowingly dishonest claims?
Last edited by Pangean; 2016-06-06 at 06:05 AM.
What are we gonna do now? Taking off his turban, they said, is this man a Jew?
'Cause they're working for the clampdown
They put up a poster saying we earn more than you!
When we're working for the clampdown
We will teach our twisted speech To the young believers
We will train our blue-eyed men To be young believers
Let's go home guys, the world should stop paying attention to terrorism because the deaths it causes don't meet Zafire's Bathtub Quota (BAQ). Until ISIS gets better at murdering innocent people than bathtubs we shouldn't care because there are obviously more important matters to attend to, duh.
Last edited by stithos; 2016-06-06 at 06:13 AM.
More people die per year from school shootings than from ISIS in America.
More people die per day from drunk driving than from ISIS in America per year.
More people commit suicide per year than ISIS kills people per year.
It is not an issue that needs undivided attention.
As stated in your other thread about the same subject:
So, even if there is a significant minority that dislike both candidates (which is interesting and will make the campaign nastier) there is no majority that hate both - and not even a majority that dislike both.