Donald Trump: We're going to 'open up' libel laws...

[Zecora]

Y'know...you grow up being told about the US of A, how great it is, how they saved us poor Europeans, how it's the land of milk, honey and dreams.

Then you get a little older, and you start seeing things that doesn't quite match with what you've been told. The wars, the poverty, the hatred of anything that is "unamerican".

You dig a little bit deeper, trying to keep an open mind of course, but you see how the rich and the corporations basically control everything, pushing through laws that benefit them alone, not the people. You see the people of this land of milk, honey and dreams elect people that keep them poor.

You've become disillusioned, seeing a country that treats dissenters the way you were told they did in the "horrible Soviet", a country where Greed Is God, a country where power is being swapped between two right-wing parties with a system that essentially guarantee that no-one else can ever win. But you keep some hope, because you KNOW that there are good, decent people caught in that unholy mess, and you want to hope for them.

Then you see the way those who try to help the public is hunted (yes, Snowden among others), and gradually, it all just wears you down.



And then comes Trump.


And you know you should care.


But somehow, all you think is...

[hrugner]

The USA doesn't already have such laws?

Sort of. Right now a journalist could publish a completely false and very damaging news article and put it in anonymous interview format avoiding taking ownership of the words, or claim not to know that what they printed was false. The damages aren't really worth the effort either. Next time you see a click baity headline in quotes, that's the sort of thing I'm talking about.

But since Trump hasn't said what he wants to change exactly or how, who knows what it is he's trying to do here other than grab support from people exhausted by news media bullshit.

[p291u]

The USA doesn't already have such laws?

What Kim Jong Trump wants is to stop the bad man writing big words about him. He's a monosyllabic mouth breather, and the big words make him mad.

The media in the US can still very much publish libelous material and are protected as long as they claim they were "unaware" and were simply quoting a source. Also, if you knew how to read you would know that I never said they didn't have these laws... in fact, I specifically said the words "more easily".

[p291u]

Isn't freedom of speech rights for the press specifically protected under the first amendment? Little Donny having his feelings hurt is no reason to go all unamerican, being the saviour of America he claims to be.

The first amendment doesn't protect you in the case of libel. It helps if you educate yourself on the subject matter before having discussions.

[Deleted]

Cool story. The silent majorty are a bunch of utter morons.
(..)
For good reason. I'm not interested in the opinions of the ignorant.

All who don't share your views are ignorant morons? What if/when you are the ignorant one instead?

It seems to be true that no one is more arrogant nor selfish than the average liberal -- or "liberal", as true liberalism does not exist in such utterly depsicable people, who have twisted and perverted its meaning to suit their moronic and dishonest political agendas.

[Razkul]

Benghazi and 90% tax rates are totally cool, right OP?

[xChurch]

All who don't share your views are ignorant morons? What if/when you are the ignorant one instead?

It seems to be true that no one is more arrogant nor selfish than the average liberal -- or "liberal", as true liberalism does not exist in such utterly depsicable people, who have twisted and perverted its meaning to suit their moronic and dishonest political agendas.

Then why do you keep referring to them as Liberal if by your own admission they aren't? Seems like agenda pushing to me.

[Runenwächter]

wow a vague and potentially controversial suggestion from trump, onto which both sides can now paint their fears and hopes and therefore talk more about trump. that is new. also trump. you getting the picture here?

[p291u]

As you have said, you have liable laws. If trump wants to silence a free press he'll have to run contrary to the freedoms given to the press in the first amendment.

It's libel not liable. And not necessarily, the press has special protections that prevent them from suffering losses regarding the publishing of libelous material as long as they are shifty about it. They essentially have a free ride to balance publishing libelous material with hurting their own reputation.

The first amendment doesn't protect you in the case of libel in the US but it does help lessen the liability. Many European countries have much stronger libel laws because they don't have a first amendment protection on their speech, which is why it's a little ironic there are many Europeans on here against what Trump is saying: they are already living with his suggestions.

My main comment here is the ridiculous contrast between this and state controlled media. If you want state controlled media, you remove any libel laws against the media so they can publish anything they want and then you nationalize them. This is, quite literally, the opposite direction of what Trump was suggesting.

[Deleted]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-med...el-laws-219866

And americans are fucking thinking about electing him?!

Get over yourself. He's talking about deliberate fake articles. If anything there should be more like this - the civilised version of TALK SHIT GET HIT.

[p291u]

Get over yourself. He's talking about deliberate fake articles. If anything there should be more like this - the civilised version of TALK SHIT GET HIT.

Like I said above, the ironic thing is that many Europeans are already living with what Trump wants and much more.

[Vash The Stampede]

Get over yourself. He's talking about deliberate fake articles. If anything there should be more like this - the civilised version of TALK SHIT GET HIT.

But fake articles are questionable. If you could sue someone over something that you claim is false, you could in theory bankrupt them into submission through lawsuits. Everything can come into question, like Trump weights 200 lbs, but Trump could sue them for malice since it makes him look fat and he's really just 199 lbs. Trump has an orange face, and he could sue them for that too. It's not pink, it's lightish red.

The lawyers will have a field day if Trump gets his way. All those patent trolls will have a new area to venture into now. And it seems Trump has no limit on what makes him angry.

[Deleted]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-med...el-laws-219866

And americans are fucking thinking about electing him?!

Fox News bankrupt in 3...2..1..

[Jinpachi]

The existing litmus test, i.e. "would a reasonable person believe this is true" is fine as is.

Because quite frankly, nobody is really hurt by Hustler printing that Jerry Falwell fucks his granny in the tool shed or whatnot.

Which is obvious satire, published by a porn magazine. If you are comparing hustler to the new york times, or any of these other publications, you're a fucking idiot.

- - - Updated - - -

Fun Fact: Most voters are not terribly educated or foresighted individuals.

Judging from the number of your posts, you're not a terribly fit or healthy individual.

Infracted

[Pangean]

Get over yourself. He's talking about deliberate fake articles. If anything there should be more like this - the civilised version of TALK SHIT GET HIT.

And explain how the current laws are not enough to deal with this.

Trump wants to sue Cruz for posting an ad with Trump's own words. Suing for Trump is a weapon. It has nothing to do with the morality or ethics.

[Xeones]

How do you get to state controlled media from allowing people to more easily file lawsuits against journalists who publish damaging things about people that can be demonstrated to be false?

Because there is absolutely nothing that stops you from filing a libel suit against anyone you choose. But if Trump were to file a lawsuit it would get laughed out for a variety of reasons. Let me give you some basic knowledge you should have gotten from your government class when discussing free speech.

For something to be libel the person writing it must know the statement/s to be false and must be making these false statements with the intention to harm another, typically financially. An example of a libelous suit would be writing false information about a rival in business in order to try diminishing their business.

Now the key point of above is that the person "knows they are making false statements" to have a libel trial you have to prove the person is knowingly making a false statement. You also have to prove that their intention is to cause you some harm. This is a high bar for a trial. For public figures, especially politicians, the bar is almost impossibly high. Trump is putting himself out there, people are going to have an opinion on him and publish it. They kind of have to with the position he is seeking.

When I say Trump is a fascist here, I'm not making a libelous statement I'm stating an opinion. An opinion that is further reinforced when Trump says he wants to make it so he can sue anyone who disagrees with him. Which is how I answer your question, the opinions about Trump cannot be proven (or "demonstrated") to be false thus there is no case and it would be instantly tossed out of court. What Trump wants is to silence those who don't agree with him, which is what dictators do, he is not interested in freedom of speech though he is benefiting greatly from it.