Priebus: Trump Considering Amending or Abolishing 1st Amendment

[Garnier Fructis]

Looks at URL. Skims the "Article". Laughs because a President can't do that anyways. Looks like you fell for that fake news.

Tell me where they said Trump was going to do this, instead of just commenting on how disturbing a transcript was. Man, it's almost like you guys don't understand what fake news is.

[Deleted]

Even if he could, why would he? He won with all the shitstorm going on with mass media.

[tss]

Does your shoulder hurt from reaching so hard?

[Berengil]

Touching the first amendment is a third rail, but I wouldn't be averse to a new constitutional amendment that holds the press accountable for any reporting that is proven to be false/libelous/slander. Maybe:

" The freedom of the press granted under the first amendment to this constitution shall in no way be construed to grant the press immunity from prosecution for content proven to be false, libelous, or that constitutes slander."

The media has a great deal of power in our society. Requiring them to hold themselves to a high standard of integrity is not unreasonable.

As we know, with great power comes great responsibility.

This would probably put Fox and MSNBC out of business.

[Stormspark]

Touching the first amendment is a third rail, but I wouldn't be averse to a new constitutional amendment that holds the press accountable for any reporting that is proven to be false/libelous/slander. Maybe:

" The freedom of the press granted under the first amendment to this constitution shall in no way be construed to grant the press immunity from prosecution for content proven to be false, libelous, or that constitutes slander."

The media has a great deal of power in our society. Requiring them to hold themselves to a high standard of integrity is not unreasonable.

As we know, with great power comes great responsibility.

This would probably put Fox and MSNBC out of business.

There doesn't need to be an amendment. Slander and libel are already illegal. It just has to be proven that the people making the claims knew they were false at the time they made them.

[Breccia]

it is already legal to sue someone for intentionally publishing
a) something you know to be false, and
b) something that is damaging.

Trump trying to change that implies that he either
a) wants to sue people for saying things that are true, or
b) wants to sue people for saying things that only hurt his widdle feewings

Whether or not he actually tries is irrelevant. He should be mocked repeatedly for even suggesting it.

[Belize]

Libel is already covered under the law, and can be punished if proven.

Why hasn't Trump sued the media? Some of ya'll seriously need to use critical thinking.

[Breccia]

Yeah calling fake news on this one. This isn't happening.

What part is "fake"?
A) That Priebus said it? That is not fake. That is true. Linked source and everything.
B) That Trump won't do it? That doesn't make the story fake. Trump stating intentions, and then not following through, is not fake news. It is real news. You just don't like it.

You probably should have suggested the title was a stretch. That, you could have backed up. What you said, you can't.

[Zython]

But I was told the real threat to the first amendment was college students that didn't want their tuitions helping make people putting hits out on minorities millionaires. What gives?

[Ripster42]

today i learned that looking into possibly changing libel laws is wanting to abolish the 1st amendment.

the more you know

I'm doubting you learned anything. You don't seem capable of that, or reading the thread title apparently.

I understand what the First Amendment is, Preibus clearly says they are unsure whether they will pursue any course of action.

There are also limits to Freedom of the Press and reporting lies as truth anywhere other than clearly marked opinion columns isn't protected be freedom of the Press. But considering how nuanced proving defamation, or even breaching it is might want to be visited.

Just how the Press isn't here to operate as a government propaganda organization, it also shouldn't be allowed to operate in an antiparty propaganda organization either.

Now I'm not siding with Trump, or saying I believe whole heatedly that they are reporting lies, because it's borderline impossible to tell, but at the end of the day the media wields a huge amount of power to influence and the past 2 years have shown more negatives to this power than positives.
Should the free press be allowed to push agendas? Corrupting the truth to suit a view is simply lying.

And the title says they're considering. Is it that you don't know what considering means?

Again, the first amendment isn't just about the press, but freedom of speech. It's dumb to think that any power you give to control the press won't be abused. Yes, the free press should be allowed to push agendas. There are already laws about lying. It's called libel. We don't need to change anything about them. Hell, we even require 24 hour news channels to distinguish between when they're reporting news and when they're offering commentary. We don't need more controls.

[Deleted]

If the 2nd amendment can be changed and altered to the point where the ATF can make up the rules as the feel like then what's the problem with doing the same to the 1st?

So Trumpy wants to push the US lower on this list?

That doesn't look like the maps all that accurate. Most of the yellow ones should be orange.

[GreenJesus]

I read the whole thing, but nowhere does it say he wants to eliminate the first amendment. He is frustrated with conspiracy stories constantly being run about him on mainstream media.

[Belize]

I read the whole thing, but nowhere does it say he wants to eliminate the first amendment. He is frustrated with conspiracy stories constantly being run about him on mainstream media.

You mean like the conspiracy theories was peddling about Obama?

Karma's a bitch, ain't it.

[GreenJesus]

If the 2nd amendment can be changed and altered to the point where the ATF can make up the rules as the feel like then what's the problem with doing the same to the 1st?




That doesn't look like the maps all that accurate. Most of the yellow ones should be orange.

Why would America not by white? I'm confused. What limiter do we have on the press now?

[Heladys]

This. Precisely. Petulant-10-year-old-in-Chief works too.

Also, if we're going to insult the alt-right in their own language, "Cuck-mander in Chief".

[VooDsXo]

There is an approximately 0% chance of Trump doing either of those things, largely because it's not his decision to make, so I'm not even going to worry about it.

Lmao, this is showing how ignorant the current "President" actually is, I mean seriously even if he could get the congress to agree to it, the Supreme Court would literally stop it dead in its tracks. Lmao, abolish/amend the 1st hahahahha oh god, sounds like Vladmir Putin is putting more ideas in his head, that dont work here...rofl

[Shadowferal]

Lawmakers slam Priebus for libel law comments

Lawmakers slammed White House chief of staff Reince Priebus' remark from Sunday that the Trump administration is considering changing libel laws.

“I think it’s something that we’ve looked at, and how that gets executed or whether that goes anywhere is a different story,” Priebus told ABC’s "This Week."

That drew rebuke from both parties, with GOP Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) urging Americans to “fight any effort to abridge the freedom of speech or the press.”

Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) -- a frequent social media critic of the Trump administration -- said Priebus’ statements “should alarm even Republicans,” and said such action would be “marching America down the road to authoritarianism.”

[Halicia]

perfect example of "the media" (lol a blog) taking someones words and twisting them around to fit their narrative. At no time did he say "Trump Considering Amending or Abolishing 1st Amendment", he said they looked into changing libel laws, "looked in to", Holding the press accountable for this kind of nonsense is something that should be looked into.

So you're saying Trump is wasting taxpayer dollars "looking into" something he has no intention of considering ?

You don't load a gun because you DON'T intend to fire it.

[GreenJesus]

Breitbart and infowars would be included in libel laws. Reporters and news agencies should care more about what they publish instead of pushing for "FIRST!" then - "sorry we didn't look at the facts and just spit out an article for likes" on the back page a day later. Everyone should have the right to protect themselves as US citizens. Criticising the president is fine, but at a certain level it can be dangerous.

[Wyrt]

Trump is a fucking lunatic.