Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Trump Considering Changing Libel Laws


Farmer77

Recommended Posts

While not the first thing Trump has said or done that shows he would prefer to be a dictator this is the most clear thus far :

Trump's chief of staff: 'We've looked at' changing libel laws 

Quote

Reince Priebus, the president's chief of staff, said during an interview on ABC's "This Week" on Sunday that the White House has discussed potential changes to laws that are intended to safeguard free speech.

Wow , just wow. 

Edited by Farmer77
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Trump has been saying this for at least a few months now.. And the long and short of it.. It's bluster. Trump can't do anything about libel law because the feds can't do anything about it. There isn't fed libel law- it's a states rights issue, and each state has their own libel laws. So changing libel at the fed level isn't going to happen.

There is a point of libel internationally- a person from another country could sue a U.S. business like a media business for libel. There the feds can have a say in what happens. But it's doubtful that Trump would open up those particular libel laws because it would make it easier for people of other nations to sue U.S. businesses.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, that just shows how deeply public spirited and humanitarian the Great Leader is, since he's clearly only thinking of others being unjustly libelled, since no one would ever possibly think of saying anything uncomplimentary about the great and humanitarian Leader. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, rashore said:

Trump has been saying this for at least a few months now.. And the long and short of it.. It's bluster. Trump can't do anything about libel law because the feds can't do anything about it. There isn't fed libel law- it's a states rights issue, and each state has their own libel laws. So changing libel at the fed level isn't going to happen.

There is a point of libel internationally- a person from another country could sue a U.S. business like a media business for libel. There the feds can have a say in what happens. But it's doubtful that Trump would open up those particular libel laws because it would make it easier for people of other nations to sue U.S. businesses.

Thanks for the clarification on the laws. 

I think regardless of his ability to actually pull it off its a great glimpse into the mind of the man and it gives us a good place to begin measuring his future actions and or bluster. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, rashore said:

There is a point of libel internationally- a person from another country could sue a U.S. business like a media business for libel.

wouldn't it be interesting if one country, or a country's leaders, could sue another for libel. That would provoke some interesting cases. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

wouldn't it be interesting if one country, or a country's leaders, could sue another for libel. That would provoke some interesting cases. 

That would be interesting for sure, yipes. There's probably some sort of international laws about that sort of thing. I know there's a bunch of law stuff about how one country "sues" another over various things. Maybe under propaganda laws would be where libel suit would be applied. I think that would still end up being business/person vs country rather than country/country leader vs country/country leader.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He would have to put in a statue of limitations for sure, else Obama would be able to ding him from everything from the Birther claims to the golfing claims.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Thanks for the clarification on the laws. 

I think regardless of his ability to actually pull it off its a great glimpse into the mind of the man and it gives us a good place to begin measuring his future actions and or bluster. 

Some more information about the laws of libel itself. This is an excellent primer of proving fault of actual malice vs negligence as it pertains to proof of actual malice in relation to public officials and public figures vs proof of negligence in relation to private figures. It covers libel and defamation.

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/proving-fault-actual-malice-and-negligence

Keep in mind that individual state libel laws also apply, and each state has their own website about their laws.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So far as I know, Trump's proposed reforms just put libel protection for public figures on the same footing as for private ones; at the moment, the famous have less protection than us nobodies.

'Freedom of Speech' isn't much of an argument when speech about almost everybody is already curtailed to the proposed degree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, PersonFromPorlock said:

So far as I know, Trump's proposed reforms just put libel protection for public figures on the same footing as for private ones; at the moment, the famous have less protection than us nobodies.

Yes and that would keep news organizations from publishing any story in which the source needed to remain anonymous for fear of punishment and it would give the government a great tool of oppression. Want to silence a reporter? Threaten or pay off  his source and make them recant and BOOM the reporter and or news outlet is shut down. 

 That is an unacceptable outcome in a free society 

Edited by Farmer77
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Yes and that would keep news organizations from publishing any story in which the source needed to remain anonymous for fear of punishment and it would give the government a great tool of oppression. Want to silence a reporter? Threaten or pay off  his source and make them recant and BOOM the reporter and or news outlet is shut down. 

 That is an unacceptable outcome in a free society 

The whole issue of special vulnerability for public officials only dates back to  New York Times v. Sullivan (1964). The press wasn't notably 'silenced' before then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, PersonFromPorlock said:

The whole issue of special vulnerability for public officials only dates back to  New York Times v. Sullivan (1964). The press wasn't notably 'silenced' before then.

 :lol: Thats the irony of silencing the media, we'll never really know will we? Or maybe to put it another way think about some of the horrific things which we now know our government was doing or planning before that time which noone reported to the media or the media didnt report to the populace- Tuskogee, MK Ultra etc. 

That aside I think comparing the current folks in office to anyone prior is something of a huge (Yuuuuuge)  leap in logic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
On 4/30/2017 at 0:54 PM, rashore said:

. So changing libel at the fed level isn't going to happen.

 

yea,  i heard same thing thousands of times about trump being a president,

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/30/2017 at 4:36 PM, Farmer77 said:

 

 That is an unacceptable outcome in a free society 

maybe, but we do not live in such society, 

Edited by aztek
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, so I'm kind of confused of what's the situation here. (might be my slight learning disability blocking my understanding) I'm looking at Trump's statements, 

Quote

A year ago in February, Trump said that, as president, he would "open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money."

And a bit some sentences later, 

Quote

Under British law, the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that a statement was true.

Isn't that case, of what should be here already in the states. Unless, my courses in communication minor are archaic, (could be, it was the late 80's) if publications writes statements, it has to be backed up and proven, right? Unless, we're talking about publications that make it known that everything published was said in their opinion? In which, that is part of free speech, (and should be protected) 

Forgive my confusion, but is Trump trying to have laws to sue opinions as libel laws infractions? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, aztek said:

why is it a bad thing?  it only affects those that publish lies, we seen plenty of that. 

On that note:

Quote

In February 2016, Trump said if he won the presidency he would "open up our libel laws so when (media) write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money."

Quote

Trump and his administration have made attacks on the media a recurring part of his platform. Changing libel laws was even part of Trump's campaign trail rhetoric.

Really, CNN? Maybe because you published unfounded articles about Trump and a hooker in Russia? Or was it those articles "proving" he was working with Russia to win the Presidency? Nah, it can't have anything to do with that.
This is a screenshot I took on my own computer, just seconds after writing this post.

fake_news.jpg

Not one. single. hit. CNN = "fake news"

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fake news ought to be a crime also. In the Military "a false Official statement" is a crime. Knowingly putting out false information ought to make someone libel when damage or injuries occur.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.