Donald Trump suggests he wants US law to limit free speech in wake of publication

[Edge-]

And silence from the Republican party. I have difficulty believing they'd be equally as silent if he even hinted at restrictions to the Second Amendment, as history has shown us when liberals so much as breathe the words "gun control" in a hushed whisper.

Congressional Republicans continue to show how spineless they are by not even pushing back at rhetorical attacks on the First Amendment by a sitting god-damn president.

[Adam Jensen]

And silence from the Republican party. I have difficulty believing they'd be equally as silent if he even hinted at restrictions to the Second Amendment, as history has shown us when liberals so much as breathe the words "gun control" in a hushed whisper.

Congressional Republicans continue to show how spineless they are by not even pushing back at rhetorical attacks on the First Amendment by a sitting god-damn president.

Donald Trump attacks the First Amendment: Republicans are quiet.

Barack Obama literally does nothing towards gun control: Republicans claim "HE'S COMING FOR YOUR GUNS!" and weapons and ammunition sell out in shops across America.

*eyeroll*

[Odinfrost]

I am not saying Trump is a dictator or will become a dictator. I am just saying that he is slowly but surely trying to mark all of the boxes. Whether he succeeds or not is a different story

[lockedout]

Donald Trump suggests he wants US law to limit free speech

It already does limit certain kinds of speech. Probably not the kind he wants it to though.

[Vankrys]

To be fair, i am confused a bit about the field of law that deals in defamation with regard of the first amendment.


While the first amendment does provide freedom of the press, does it provide "total" freedom, including exaggerated or unproven fact?

I'm not defending Trump, i'm just wondering if he does have a case for slander. In other word, how much back research do you need to have before publishing demeaning stories. I am trying to get a sense of the limit of the first amendment.

In my country for example (France), we have obviously freedom of expression, but hate speech is illegal and a criminal offence. I don't think it is in the US.


EDIT: i found that article about the subject.
http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/...ee-speech.html

it seems that the supreme court has given some guidelines

The U.S. Supreme Court has said that a statement is an opinion that merits protection when it is
(1) about a matter of public concern,
(2) expressed in a way that makes it hard to prove whether it is true or false, and
(3) can't be reasonably interpreted to be a factual statement about someone.

[Amerrol]

Does this qualify as being a snowflake, then?
@Amerrol

Hmm, tough to say without reading the book. If the author doesn't provide irrefutable proof of instances of mental instability in Trump, then that can be considered libel, right? Which I'd say Trump has a right be be pissed if that's the case.

This isn't the same as some random SJW getting butthurt on Twitter about some perceived injustice, but someone specifically attacking Trump and his administration. If the allegations are true, then I'm glad they came to light. If not, I hope Trump gets justice.

Regardless, I don't agree that free speech laws should be changed because someone wrote bad stuff about Trump. I'm not surprised that's his reaction though, he's one of the most narcissistic people on the planet. I wish he handled this in his usual dismissive method, not getting so defensive over it.

[Sky High]

ahhh Trumpy got triggered. good to see what passes as an exemplary anti PC president.

[Machismo]

Hmm, tough to say without reading the book. If the author doesn't provide irrefutable proof of instances of mental instability in Trump, then that can be considered libel, right? Which I'd say Trump has a right be be pissed if that's the case.

This isn't the same as some random SJW getting butthurt on Twitter about some perceived injustice, but someone specifically attacking Trump and his administration. If the allegations are true, then I'm glad they came to light. If not, I hope Trump gets justice.

Regardless, I don't agree that free speech laws should be changed because someone wrote bad stuff about Trump. I'm not surprised that's his reaction though, he's one of the most narcissistic people on the planet. I wish he handled this in his usual dismissive method, not getting so defensive over it.

No, in the case of libel, Trump would have to demonstrate that the accusations are not only false, but also specifically defamatory. he is merely repeating what others have said, so it would take a ton to actually go after the author.

Regardless of all of that, it demonstrates Trump's utter hypocrisy in the First Amendment, especially considering the false accusations he's made.

The best part will be when all of his "free speech" supporters line up behind him... or remain silent.

[Warning]

After defending incompetence, sexual harassment, treason, and pedophilia I expect this one to be an easy swallow for the Trump acolytes.

[Garnier Fructis]

Hmm, tough to say without reading the book. If the author doesn't provide irrefutable proof of instances of mental instability in Trump, then that can be considered libel, right? Which I'd say Trump has a right be be pissed if that's the case.

Maybe. But at least in the courts, the author wouldn't have to provide irrefutable proof. He wouldn't have to provide any proof at all. Instead, the subject has to prove many things, including that the statements were false, and that they caused harm.

And hurt feelings don't actually count. Harm would be, say, damage to his reputation. Considering his reputation is already in the gutter, I'm not sure how much harm there is to be done.

[stumpy]

Be interesting to see what Fox says about this (most likely nothing) given that any law or ruling that would cover this book would likely apply equally well to them.

[Amerrol]

No, in the case of libel, Trump would have to demonstrate that the accusations are not only false, but also specifically defamatory. he is merely repeating what others have said, so it would take a ton to actually go after the author.

Regardless of all of that, it demonstrates Trump's utter hypocrisy in the First Amendment, especially considering the false accusations he's made.

The best part will be when all of his "free speech" supporters line up behind him... or remain silent.

I see, I don't much about libel laws, but I suppose that makes sense.

Let's be real here, Trump isn't going to do anything to the 1st Amendment though. He got mad because someone talked shit about him, and thought that it should protect him because he's The Donald. If he really wanted to do something he'd do it behind closed doors during a holiday weekend in the middle of a 1000 page budget plan, like every other scum bag politician does.

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe. But at least in the courts, the author wouldn't have to provide irrefutable proof. He wouldn't have to provide any proof at all. Instead, the subject has to prove many things, including that the statements were false, and that they caused harm.

And hurt feelings don't actually count. Harm would be, say, damage to his reputation. Considering his reputation is already in the gutter, I'm not sure how much harm there is to be done.

Uh, this could definitely damage his reputation. Lot's of people love him, and alleged claims from White House insiders saying Trump is mentally unhinged could carry a lot of weight. This doesn't really matter to someone like you, considering how much you hate him, but it could change plenty of people's minds who are on the fence. It could also lead to costly investigations, which would be a waste of time and money if everything turned out to be fabricated.

[Garnier Fructis]

Uh, this could definitely damage his reputation. Lot's of people love him, and alleged claims from White House insiders saying Trump is mentally unhinged could carry a lot of weight. This doesn't really matter to someone like you, considering how much you hate him, but it could change plenty of people's minds who are on the fence. It could also lead to costly investigations, which would be a waste of time and money if everything turned out to be fabricated.

I seriously, seriously, seriously doubt that this would be meaningful to people 'on the fence' if the past year's worth of revelations from White House insiders didn't sway them already.

I could have bought this argument like, 9 months ago. But at this point? Either his base doesn't care or they don't believe anything from White House insiders. And why would this be any different?

[Machismo]

I see, I don't much about libel laws, but I suppose that makes sense.

Let's be real here, Trump isn't going to do anything to the 1st Amendment though. He got mad because someone talked shit about him, and thought that it should protect him because he's The Donald. If he really wanted to do something he'd do it behind closed doors during a holiday weekend in the middle of a 1000 page budget plan, like every other scum bag politician does.

- - - Updated - - -



Uh, this could definitely damage his reputation. Lot's of people love him, and alleged claims from White House insiders saying Trump is mentally unhinged could carry a lot of weight. This doesn't really matter to someone like you, considering how much you hate him, but it could change plenty of people's minds who are on the fence. It could also lead to costly investigations, which would be a waste of time and money if everything turned out to be fabricated.

He's not going to do anything, mainly because he can't. The fact that he is arguing against the First Amendment is comical enough. The same goes for any "free speech" supporter who doesn't instantly condemn him.

[masterhorus8]

Maybe. But at least in the courts, the author wouldn't have to provide irrefutable proof. He wouldn't have to provide any proof at all. Instead, the subject has to prove many things, including that the statements were false, and that they caused harm.

And hurt feelings don't actually count. Harm would be, say, damage to his reputation. Considering his reputation is already in the gutter, I'm not sure how much harm there is to be done.

On top of all of what you said, I think there is something about some types of public figures that are not protected as much as if they were not in that position.

[Garnier Fructis]

On top of all of what you said, I think there is something about some types of public figures that are not protected as much as if they were not in that position.

Yeah, for high profile figures, they also have to prove that there was malicious intent.

[masterhorus8]

Yeah, for high profile figures, they also have to prove that there was malicious intent.

Ahh, okay, so that was where it fit in. My bad. CARRY ON.

[Stormspark]

I am not saying Trump is a dictator or will become a dictator. I am just saying that he is slowly but surely trying to mark all of the boxes. Whether he succeeds or not is a different story

He wants to become a dictator, very badly. Whether or not he will succeed actually isn't up to him, it's up to Congress. He's not intelligent enough to pull it off.

[Kiri]

No, I'm not for changing libel laws or adjusting our freedom of speech. What I am for is returning this game the D's are playing 100-fold to them the next time they are in power (if that happens). They'll just have to buy off ABC/NBC/CBS/NYT/WP, and they'll be able to push any made-up bullshit whenever they want! Anonymous third/fourth-degree sources and hearsay unite!

So, basically business as usual? I mean the whole Birther thing predated all of this and Trump still has not published the real certificate he supposedly has.

[draynay]

must be fun clicking all these BUTTONS for your posts