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

[Mormolyce]

Perhaps they view it as an attack on their judgement, as they voted for Trump and can't accept that they made a bad choice.

It's deeper than that, partisan politics has convinced a lot of gullible people to make their shitty party part of their identity. So any attack on the party is an attack on who they are.

Which is utterly idiotic because if those people turned off their kneejerk emotional responses for five minutes and looked long and hard at their party they'd probably realise that it barely represents them at all. And they probably despise a lot of these people as much as their opponents do, but can't admit it because that would show weakness in front of The Enemy. We can't attack our own, The Tribe is under attack from Outsiders!

Of course, that's exactly what political parties want. Because they know that they are uncharismatic garbage that poorly serves the interests of their voters. So judged on their own merits, only a fraction of their voters would still vote for them. It's too hard to make good policy, even if you made a good one it's really easy for the other side to spin it as terrible. So why bother? Instead make it about identity over substance. It's a little flag to wave and nothing more. Constantly divert attention away from who you are and onto the opposite team.

It's very hard to make yourself liked. But really easy to make the opposition hated. And if you hate the enemy enough, you'll forgive your allies no matter how terrible they are or how little they serve your actual interests.

The perfect crime of modern partisan politics. Both sides do it, although in this case it's been taken to its nihilistic extreme by the Republicans. A month ago there were people literally saying on air that it's better to vote for a child molester than a Democrat. That's laying out the cards for everyone to see.

[Nadiru]

I think it should. And I think the response is incorrect; it's basically a bigger version of peoples' general unwillingness to admit when they're wrong.

I will preface this by saying that I'm perfectly okay with Mueller's investigation and if his findings either bring Trump to jail or in some other way provides a measure of solace for the country, it's effort well-spent. With that concluded: By that rationale, is something like the Russia investigation relevant or is it possible that it's another version of peoples' general unwillingness to admit when they're wrong?

It's deeper than that, partisan politics has convinced a lot of gullible people to make their shitty party part of their identity. So any attack on the party is an attack on who they are.

Of course, that's exactly what political parties want. Because they know that they are uncharismatic garbage that poorly serves the interests of their voters. So judged on their own merits, only a fraction of their voters would still vote for them. It's too hard to make good policy, even if you made a good one it's really easy for the other side to spin it as terrible. So why bother? Instead make it about identity over substance. It's a little flag to wave and nothing more. Constantly divert attention away from who you are and onto the opposite team.

The perfect crime of modern partisan politics. Both sides do it, although in this case it's been taken to its nihilistic extreme by the Republicans. A month ago there were people literally saying on air that it's better to vote for a child molester than a Democrat. That's laying out the cards for everyone to see.

Trump may well be garbage, but uncharismatic he is not. Also, the Republican voterbase is hardly the only people to make the argument made for Roy Moore, even recently.

[Mormolyce]

Trump may well be garbage, but uncharismatic he is not.

I was talking about the political establishment. Trump is just a parasite.

But honestly, I'd say he has the opposite of charisma. He makes it clear to everyone in the room he's a piece of shit simply by talking.

P.S. Al Franken touched a boob. Sure it's not good, but it's not exactly the same thing as a child molester like Roy Moore.

[breadisfunny]

No.

If anyone in this admin is Goebbels, SHS gets that accolade.

reeally josef goebbels the same josef goebbels who censored and controlled the german media? sounds very familiar...

[Nadiru]

P.S. Al Franken touched a boob. Sure it's not good, but it's not exactly the same thing as a child molester like Roy Moore.

If it were up to me, sure. It's not, though, and as a society we've more or less decided on an institutional level that all sexual harassment or predations are created equal, witness 18 year olds being put on a sex offender registry for banging a 17 year old.

[Mormolyce]

If it were up to me, sure. It's not, though, and as a society we've more or less decided on an institutional level that all sexual harassment or predations are created equal, witness 18 year olds being put on a sex offender registry for banging a 17 year old.

I don't think that they are equal, either at law or in the light of social condemnation. Sex offender registries are a complex issue I suppose but maybe a topic for another time.

I certainly understand why Franken stood down, politically. And at least some of what he's accused of appears to be true, and what he did isn't okay. I don't think it's fair to equate him and Roy Moore though.

[Nadiru]

I don't think that they are equal, either at law or in the light of social condemnation. Sex offender registries are a complex issue I suppose but maybe a topic for another time.

I certainly understand why Franken stood down, politically. And at least some of what he's accused of appears to be true, and what he did isn't okay. I don't think it's fair to equate him and Roy Moore though.

I don't think what Franken did is on the same level as what's been alleged at Moore, either. That said, I do think the courts have an awful hard time telling sexual offenses apart.

[Cthulhu 2020]

It's always a shame when @Sulla gets banned.

I wanted to read a post all about how someone who kept the Clinton's house clean 20 years ago and hasn't been employed by them, suddenly dying in a car accident, is Clinton putting a hit out on her. And other such nonsense. It's always fun to just sit and laugh out loud at the craziest shit these people come up with.

[Breccia]

Oddly enough, Trump has a lot he can work with here. Can. But won't.

1) He could sue for slander and/or libel. To do so, he must prove the book is FALSE. He could do this with Wolff's book.

2) Or, he could claim the book contains work product covered by an NDA. To do so, he must prove the book is TRUE. He could do this with Bannon's book.

The problem is, both books say roughly the same thing -- Trump is an incompetent businessman turned incompetent politician. Shocking, I know. But it's rather difficult to shut them both down. If they both agree, then one can't be true while the other false.

Now, some of the more savvy Trump supporters might be saying "well it's obvious, they are both false, and he could sue Bannon for slander or libel". Well, no. See, Trump has tweeted about Wolff having no contact with the WH or him -- as I posted this very hour, that claim is provably false -- but he can't possibly try that with Bannon, who was not only in the campaign as a major guy for months, but also in the WH as a major guy for months. He would be claiming he got duped, or intentionally hired a blatant liar. This in turn makes him look incompetent, BOOM, book is true, QED MF.

Now, Trump has been spouting off that Wolff's book is fiction. Fair enough, he has to keep his rabid fanbase on his side. But he hasn't said that about Bannon. And the two tend to agree. Not great for Trump, and his dwindling options.

And, since both options require proof, Trump would be required to expose the behind-the-scenes of his blatantly opaque administration. (Anyone who says his administration is transparent has been spending too much time in the EPA sound-proof telephone booth and needs oxygen) This is exactly like his taxes. People make claims about what's in them, and what's not in them (paying taxes, for example) which he handwaves...but still refused to release them, like everyone from Nixon onwards.

Which means, as bad as Wollf and Bannon make him look, the truth is worse.

So, yes, Trump has decided his best course of action is to expand slander and libel laws to cover "things I say are false, but I don't need to prove are false". And, yes, that's as dictatorial as it sounds.

Which is why not even his rabid fanbase is quick to defend it.

[Mormolyce]

Just a reminder: this is far from the first time Trump has implied he wants to stymie free speech because he doesn't like what people write about him:

https://www.politico.com/blogs/on-me...el-laws-219866

I believe it's actually a campaign promise...

I don't think what Franken did is on the same level as what's been alleged at Moore, either. That said, I do think the courts have an awful hard time telling sexual offenses apart.

Well there's a variety of categories of sexual assault and the sentence applied is determined by the circumstances as well. I personally think the legal system has a pretty shitty way of dealing with such cases but there are degrees at law.

Not really relevant to Moore or Franken though, since neither of those are likely to be prosecuted.

- - - Updated - - -

It's always a shame when @Sulla gets banned.

I wanted to read a post all about how someone who kept the Clinton's house clean 20 years ago and hasn't been employed by them, suddenly dying in a car accident, is Clinton putting a hit out on her. And other such nonsense. It's always fun to just sit and laugh out loud at the craziest shit these people come up with.

I wish he'd stay unbanned long enough for me to mock him at least. There's so much to make fun of - every time he comes back he sticks his foot harder into the cow pat.

[Kiri]

Well, there are fundamental differences and similarities between the two things you are pointing out that you are either being willfully ignorant about or are just plain ignorant about.

White House leaks and hearsay - picked up by the MSM, PROMOTED and milked dry to the bone to make Donald Trump look like a fool and promote a desired public opinion.
Birther conspiracy - picked up by the MSM, REJECTED and milked dry to the bone to make Donald Trump look like a fool and promote a desired public opinion.

And the second thing wasn't even originally Donald Trump's brain child. He co-opted it from Hillary.

So the same information is milked and promoted to make Trump look bad by liberal news stations/sites and milked and promoted to make him look good by conservative ones. Seems the same to me, really. For any given piece of news regarding Trump, one side will promote it and the other reject it, aka business as usual. If you think the 'who is rejecting/promoting' is a fundamental difference, then that just shows your own bias. Fox News and other conservative outlets are part of the mainstream media, whether you want to believe it or not. When you are the primary source of news to like half the population, you are mainstream, no matter how much of a hipsters or rebel you think yourself.

[Crispin]

Lol, mass murder in Vegas and 2nd amendment isnt the problem, a book and 1st amendment needs fixing.

[Ripster42]

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

You have to prove that the information is false, prove that the author knew the information was false, and prove how it damaged you. By "prove that the information is false" you would have to prove that those people never said those thing, not that he didn't believe the people saying those things. It's incredibly favorable towards free speech, especially towards "public figures." For public figures you have to prove all the other things, and then the author also did it purposely to cause the subject harm.

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. Trump would have to prove that the author knows trump is a stable person while saying he's not stable. Basically an impossibility.

[Lynarii]

Well, maybe they have a point: Does it reflect badly on people for electing politicians who don't satisfy their promises? Does it reflect badly on people for electing politicians who satisfy promises others find loathsome?

Does if reflect badly on people for electing politicians who don't satisfy their promises? Not exactly. There are a few things to consider here. First of all, not all campaign promises SHOULD be kept. There are times when the public and the politicians running for office don't know the full story, especially when it comes to classified security information. Or other ways in which new and relevant information is presented to the person after said promises were made. Forcing a politician to never change their mind, even when they find out they were clearly wrong, is not the path to good governance. On top of that, if a politician is new, the public has no way of knowing how honest the person is.

That all being said, I think if you re-elect a politician after they're known to be dishonest or bought, their behavior is on your shoulders. For a democracy to be healthy, the public has to be aggressive in kicking out the politicians who are bad or act in bad faith. The government is only as corrupt as it's citizens allow it to be.

As for electing politicians who satisfy promises others find loathsome, you do have to take responsibility for who you vote for. If you vote for someone who is making promises to do something bad, then you are supporting that action. You can claim 'I am not voting for them for this bad action, but for other good actions', and perhaps the good may outweigh the bad, but the bad still happened because you voted the person in, and accepting your role in that is part of being involved in politics.

[Deleted]

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

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a8145741.html

He’s such a precious snowflake and a gigantic fucking hypocrite. He’s so absurdly egotistical and juvenile. After all the shit he’s said, after all the slander and garbage he’s spearheaded, this is what he wants because he’s a petty fucking imbecile.
Get this fucking clown out of office right fucking now.

[Nadiru]

Does if reflect badly on people for electing politicians who don't satisfy their promises? Not exactly. There are a few things to consider here. First of all, not all campaign promises SHOULD be kept. There are times when the public and the politicians running for office don't know the full story, especially when it comes to classified security information. Or other ways in which new and relevant information is presented to the person after said promises were made. Forcing a politician to never change their mind, even when they find out they were clearly wrong, is not the path to good governance. On top of that, if a politician is new, the public has no way of knowing how honest the person is.

That all being said, I think if you re-elect a politician after they're known to be dishonest or bought, their behavior is on your shoulders. For a democracy to be healthy, the public has to be aggressive in kicking out the politicians who are bad or act in bad faith. The government is only as corrupt as it's citizens allow it to be.

As for electing politicians who satisfy promises others find loathsome, you do have to take responsibility for who you vote for. If you vote for someone who is making promises to do something bad, then you are supporting that action. You can claim 'I am not voting for them for this bad action, but for other good actions', and perhaps the good may outweigh the bad, but the bad still happened because you voted the person in, and accepting your role in that is part of being involved in politics.

Nobody's ever going to do that, you know. The Democrats won't ever take responsibility for that bad that occurred under Obama. At least the GOP has a point when they claim Trump isn't their candidate.

[Lynarii]

Nobody's ever going to do that, you know. The Democrats won't ever take responsibility for that bad that occurred under Obama. At least the GOP has a point when they claim Trump isn't their candidate.

No, the GOP doesn't have a point when they claim that. They selected Trump as their candidate, they voted for him, he's 100% their candidate. The only way he's /not/ your candidate is if you didn't vote for him. I do love however the way you instantly went on the attack against Democrats while absolving Republicans of wrongdoing, it clearly demonstrates the point people are making about tribalism. I didn't name either party specifically myself, because my commentary applies to both of them.

[Varvara Spiros Gelashvili]

Nobody's ever going to do that, you know. The Democrats won't ever take responsibility for that bad that occurred under Obama. At least the GOP has a point when they claim Trump isn't their candidate.

Examples... I mean democrats seem to hate corruption but the republicans love it especially when there president attacks the press and media.

[Felya]

Nobody's ever going to do that, you know. The Democrats won't ever take responsibility for that bad that occurred under Obama. At least the GOP has a point when they claim Trump isn't their candidate.

If Trump wasn’t GOPs candidate, he wouldn’t be president!! Wtf?

[Stop Pretending]

Nobody's ever going to do that, you know. The Democrats won't ever take responsibility for that bad that occurred under Obama. At least the GOP has a point when they claim Trump isn't their candidate.

What bad is that exactly?