Trump laments First Amendment: "Our press is allowed to say whatever they want"
144 replies, posted
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5rp1psm1SU[/media]
[url]https://thinkprogress.org/trump-first-amendment-too-much-protection-37e72ee16ea2?gi=2f020002ebd4#.ulg1aa2x3[/url]
[quote]In an interview with WFOR, CBS’ Miami affiliate, Trump was asked if he believes the First Amendment provides “too much protection.”
Trump answered in the affirmative, saying he’d like to change the laws to make it easier to sue media companies. Trump lamented that, under current law, “our press is allowed to say whatever they want.”
He recommended moving to a system like in England where someone who sues a media company has “a good chance of winning.”[/quote]
its funny how people call hillary the facist trying to take away rights when trump activley says things like this all the time
don't vote for hillary, she want's to take away our constitutional rights
[editline]24th October 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Judas;51253656]its funny how people call hillary the facist trying to take away rights when trump activley says things like this all the time[/QUOTE]
fuck
You can sue media companies, you can take them to court if you have a strong case and you're not a bunch of idiots. Like the Hogan v Gawker case.
[QUOTE=Judas;51253656]its funny how people call hillary the facist trying to take away rights when trump activley says things like this all the time[/QUOTE]
2nd Amendment is only thing that matters to these people. They couldn't not care less for 1st nor 4th Amendments.
"I'm a tremendous believer in the freedom of press. Nobody believes it stronger than me."
The parody writes itself.
Holy shit, can this guy go the fuck away? The press isn't allowed to say whatever they want, they stay within certain boundries, but it's clear he can't handle even the slightest bit of pressure without bruising like an overripe peach.
"They can say what ever they want as long as I agree with it"
That half a second cut back to the unimpressed anchor at the end is much funnier than it ought to be.
"I'm a tremendous believe in the freedom of the press. Nobody believes it stronger than me."
[img]http://i.imgur.com/TmnOjTb.png[/img]
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51253757]That half a second cut back to the unimpressed anchor at the end is much funnier than it ought to be.
"I'm a tremendous believe in the freedom of the press. Nobody believes it stronger than me."
[img]http://i.imgur.com/TmnOjTb.png[/img][/QUOTE]
You can see it in her eyes.
"Do not yell 'fuck you' on camera, do not yell 'fuck you' on camera, do not yell 'fuck you' on camera..."
It seems fitting that Trump would admire the UK's libel law, where the standard is guilty until proven innocent. I get the feeling that he assumes it wouldn't apply to him, though.
isn't he just talking about libel? I'm beyond confused
[QUOTE=cccritical;51253845]isn't he just talking about libel? I'm beyond confused[/QUOTE]
Libel laws say that publishing the truth cannot be considered defamatory, and a defamation case can only be won if it is proved that whatever was published was patently false. Trump wants to change the libel laws to make it easier for him to sue publishing houses for publishing information that might be defamatory to him and his ego, whether it happens to be true or not.
[QUOTE=Steel & Iron;51253677]You can sue media companies, you can take them to court if you have a strong case and you're not a bunch of idiots. Like the Hogan v Gawker case.[/QUOTE]
If you have a strong case because the company is literally retarded like Gawker was, and if you have the significant monetary resources to actually go after a massive media company because some incredibly rich person happens to hate the company you're trying to sue, then yea sure.
In practice, that clearly hasn't worked as the "news" spends its days "reporting" on things in such a way to spin whatever story they want, rather than reporting the actual truth without their bullshit bias.
If you call yourself news, if you present yourself as reporting on facts, you should be legally held to a higher standard.
[QUOTE=Steel & Iron;51253677]You can sue media companies, you can take them to court if you have a strong case and you're not a bunch of idiots. Like the Hogan v Gawker case.[/QUOTE]
Gawker was not a media company
it was a tabloid run by children
Our media channels, like CNN, fox, etc, already have their biases. lets not make them more biased that they will have to say news without offending anyone and possibly getting sued
[editline]24th October 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;51253859]Libel laws say that publishing the truth cannot be considered defamatory, and a defamation case can only be won if it is proved that whatever was published was patently false. Trump wants to change the libel laws to make it easier for him to sue publishing houses for publishing information that might be defamatory to him and his ego, whether it happens to be true or not.[/QUOTE]
in retrospect, its a dumb idea for him to do this. The very few media outlets that outright support him, like briebart, would be the most affected since they are the ones that twist the news the most to fit their agenda
Tabloids spouting bullshit to make sales is harmful to free speech though... as always trump is talking about real issues but just shits on reality when hes done.
Media should be held to the light of the truth... if what you say is blatantly false you should be called out for that.
The funniest thing about this is that all the pro-Trump media like Breitbart and Infowars would actually become illegal if he instituted a law barring the press from lying.
"if those mistakes are made on purpose"
Trump once again showing off his mastery of the English language. :v:
Also I wonder how long it would take after he managed to get something this insane rolling along that he's suddenly reminded "Oh shit, now people can sue me for the stupid bullshit that [I]I[/I] say, this is not good..."
It sounds more like a money grab scheme if anything. It seems like he's trying to say that the media is what decides the truth, without realizing that common sense and proper education (which would allow people to make informed opinions based on the evidence given to them) are the simplest solution. That's the biggest problem we have, is people have a lack of understanding some of the fundamental machinations that rule our universe, let alone the country, which is why we have 9-11 truthers, flat-earthers, anti-vaxxers, anti-GMO people, the war on drugs, etc.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;51253828]That's entirely not true, the vast majority of 2nd amendment supporters support the 1st and 4th as well. [/quote]
I fully expect the NRA to unendorse Trump and the "vast majority" of 2nd amendment supporters to vote Clinton or third-party, then.
[quote]and they're ALL of equal importance. When you shit on one it's not exactly hard to shit on the rest of them.[/QUOTE]
Goodness, no, not all of the amendments are of equal importance. Not even close.
The first amendment (freedom of religion, speech and press) is infinitely more important than the protection from requisition of private quarters, changing the dates that presidential terms end and begin or the delay of laws affecting congressional salaries. And that's without bringing up the 18th amendment, which was shat on just fine.
There's no magic property of constitutional amendments that makes all of them of equal importance towards the running of a republic.
This just a week or so after Trump is revealed to have funded James O'Keefe through his "charity organization"
Fucking hypocrite.
there is absolutely no excuse to vote for trump at this point. he used a speech that was supposed to preview his first 100 days in office to say he would sue women who accused him of sexual assault and put hillary in prison, and now he's attacking the most important right we have in this country. this is on top of spending the past couple months telling his voters that the election itself is rigged. he's the most unamerican candidate we've ever had and anyone who supports him is an idiot. i don't care if you vote hillary or not, just don't fucking vote for trump.
[QUOTE=phaedon;51254089]I fully expect the NRA to unendorse Trump and the "vast majority" of 2nd amendment supporters to vote Clinton or third-party, then.
[/QUOTE]
I doubt it. Hillary has clearly stated she wants to appoint a Supreme Court justice that would overturn [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller]District of Columbia v. Heller[/url]. Which was a court case that affirmed the individual right to keep and carry firearms. She lied out her ass in the 3rd debate saying the Heller case was all about keeping toddlers away from firearms.
What scares me most is she has more of a chance of affecting the Bill of Rights than Trump does. The 1st and 4th Amendments are routinely upheld in courts by overwhelming majorities. But the 2nd Amendment is not.
Also, the Bill of Rights are very important to the running of this country. Pick apart any of them and it will fail.
[url]http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-misstated-focus-of-gun-law-in-debate-answer-1477016317[/url] (subscription)
[url]http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chapman/ct-hillary-clinton-first-second-amendent-guns-chapman-perspec-1023-jm-20161021-column.html[/url]
[QUOTE=Kigen;51254132]
Also, the Bill of Rights are very important to the running of this country. Pick apart any of them and it will fail.[/QUOTE]
How so? Is the Bill of Rights more important than the original Constitution which was amended?
[QUOTE=Kigen;51254132]The 1st and 4th Amendments are routinely upheld in courts by overwhelming majorities.[/QUOTE]
That's assuming a strongman government would abide by the courts. Trump is clearly campaigning for legislation that would restrict the freedom of religion of muslims and the freedom of the press. Saying that you don't mind this legislation because it will be overturned eventually is a pretty weak argument.
Isn't the bill of rights part of the constitution? Its odd to argue as if they were separate entities
[QUOTE=da space core;51254229]Isn't the bill of rights part of the constitution? Its odd to argue as if they were separate entities[/QUOTE]
They're amendments added later.
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51253961]Tabloids spouting bullshit to make sales is harmful to free speech though... as always trump is talking about real issues but just shits on reality when hes done.
Media should be held to the light of the truth... if what you say is blatantly false you should be called out for that.[/QUOTE]
What you're describing is already covered by existing law. Trump wants to go full retard and sue newspapers for offending him with the truth
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51254248]They're amendments added later.[/QUOTE]
that's understating the importance, the bill of rights were amendments specifically set in place to limit governmental power
[url]https://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/bill-of-rights/[/url]
[QUOTE=phaedon;51254210]How so? Is the Bill of Rights more important than the original Constitution which was amended?[/QUOTE]
Yes, because the reason the Founders ultimately added the Bill of Rights was to prevent government overreach. Obviously, the Bill of Rights is not the most important things to life. But they are the things governments go after when they want to restrict their citizens. Originally, there wasn't going to be a Bill of Rights because the Federalist argued that the Federal government was not granted the power to make laws on any of the items in the Bill of Rights. Which the Federal government's power is clearly laid out in Article I, Section 8. But the Anti-Federalist, now apparently wisely, knew that government would overstep its bounds. So they added clear language that specifically said these areas are out of bounds for the government. Its not an exhaustive list, and wasn't designed to be.
[QUOTE=phaedon;51254210]
That's assuming a strongman government would abide by the courts. Trump is clearly campaigning for legislation that would restrict the freedom of religion of muslims and the freedom of the press. Saying that you don't mind this legislation because it will be overturned eventually is a pretty weak argument.[/QUOTE]
A President is not absolute power. No where in the world is this the case. He or she has to have multiple others in collusion with them in order to assert enough influence over the government to get it to do things. That's why our system of checks and balance exists. To prevent any one branch from having enough influence to overturn the Constitution.
In North Korea for example, Kim Jong Un could not rule the country by himself. He needs others in high places to back him. If those high officials, who get lavish treatment, ever turn on him he'd be gone.
Hillary Clinton is the one with people in high places already in government. Trump does not so his attempts will fail. Also a good chunk of the Republican party hates him so yeah, not getting far there.
And for the Constitution, it was known that there could be a day where all three branches become corrupted. That is why there is the split sovereignty with the States. That is also why the 2nd Amendment exists. As a doomsday provision.
[url]https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16599538532304446493&q=kozinski&hl=en&as_sdt=2,33[/url]
The dissents in this case (California, notoriously anti-gun) were what carried the day in the Heller decision. But Judge Alex Kozinski dissent is one of the most expressive in how judges can rewrite the Constitution to suit their own agenda.
[quote][b]Judges know very well how to read the Constitution broadly when they are sympathetic to the right being asserted. We have held, without much ado, that "speech, or ... the press" also means the Internet, see Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 117 S.Ct. 2329, 138 L.Ed.2d 874 (1997), and that "persons, houses, papers, and effects" also means public telephone booths, see Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967). When a particular right comports especially well with our notions of good social policy, we build magnificent legal edifices on elliptical constitutional phrases — or even the white spaces between lines of constitutional text. See, e.g., Compassion in Dying v. Washington, 79 F.3d 790 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc), rev'd sub nom. Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 117 S.Ct. 2258, 138 L.Ed.2d 772 (1997). But, as the panel amply demonstrates, when we're none too keen on a particular constitutional guarantee, we can be equally ingenious in burying language that is incontrovertibly there.
It is wrong to use some constitutional provisions as springboards for major social change while treating others like senile relatives to be cooped up in a nursing home until they quit annoying us. As guardians of the Constitution, we must be consistent in interpreting its provisions. If we adopt a jurisprudence sympathetic to individual rights, we must give broad compass to all constitutional provisions that protect individuals from tyranny. If we take a more statist approach, we must give all such provisions narrow scope. Expanding some to gargantuan proportions while discarding others like a crumpled gum wrapper is not faithfully applying the Constitution; it's using our power as federal judges to constitutionalize our personal preferences.[/b]
The able judges of the panel majority are usually very sympathetic to individual rights, but they have succumbed to the temptation to pick and choose. Had they brought the same generous approach to the Second Amendment that they routinely bring to the First, Fourth and selected portions of the Fifth, they would have had no trouble finding an individual right to bear arms. Indeed, to conclude otherwise, they had to ignore binding precedent. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939), did not hold that the defendants lacked standing to raise a Second Amendment defense, even though the government argued the collective rights theory in its brief. See Kleinfeld Dissent at 586-587; see also Brannon P. Denning & Glenn H. Reynolds, Telling Miller's Tale: A Reply to David Yassky, 65 Law & Contemp. Probs. 113, 117-18 (2002). The Supreme Court reached the Second Amendment claim and rejected it on the merits after finding no evidence that Miller's weapon — a sawed-off shotgun — was reasonably susceptible to militia use. See Miller, 307 U.S. at 178, 59 S.Ct. 816. We are bound not only by the outcome of Miller but also by its rationale. If Miller's claim was dead on arrival because it was raised by a person rather than a state, why would the Court have bothered discussing whether a sawed-off shotgun was suitable for militia use? The panel majority not only ignores Miller's test; it renders most of the opinion wholly superfluous. As an inferior court, we may not tell the Supreme Court it was out to lunch when it last visited a constitutional provision.
The majority falls prey to the delusion — popular in some circles — that ordinary people are too careless and stupid to own guns, and we would be far better off leaving all weapons in the hands of professionals on the government payroll. But the simple truth — born of experience — is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people. Our own sorry history bears this out: Disarmament was the tool of choice for subjugating both slaves and free blacks in the South. In Florida, patrols searched blacks' homes for weapons, confiscated those found and punished their owners without judicial process. See Robert J. Cottrol & Raymond T. Diamond, The Second Amendment: Toward an Afro-Americanist Reconsideration, 80 Geo. L.J. 309, 338 (1991). In the North, by contrast, blacks exercised their right to bear arms to defend against racial mob violence. Id. at 341-42. As Chief Justice Taney well appreciated, the institution of slavery required a class of people who lacked the means to resist. See Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 417, 15 L.Ed. 691 (1857) (finding black citizenship unthinkable because it would give blacks the right to "keep and carry arms wherever they went"). A revolt by Nat Turner and a few dozen other armed blacks could be put down without much difficulty; one by four million armed blacks would have meant big trouble.
All too many of the other great tragedies of history — Stalin's atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few — were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. 570*570 Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here. See Kleinfeld Dissent at 578-579. If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars.
My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed — where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.
Fortunately, the Framers were wise enough to entrench the right of the people to keep and bear arms within our constitutional structure. The purpose and importance of that right was still fresh in their minds, and they spelled it out clearly so it would not be forgotten. Despite the panel's mighty struggle to erase these words, they remain, and the people themselves can read what they say plainly enough:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The sheer ponderousness of the panel's opinion — the mountain of verbiage it must deploy to explain away these fourteen short words of constitutional text — refutes its thesis far more convincingly than anything I might say. The panel's labored effort to smother the Second Amendment by sheer body weight has all the grace of a sumo wrestler trying to kill a rattlesnake by sitting on it — and is just as likely to succeed.[/quote]
Trump doesn't have friends in high places? How high are you? He's backed by Peter Thiel one of the most effective lobbying billionaires around.
He's got a life time of lobbying experience.
He will pay, manipulate, lie cheat fraud, all of his business tactics.
As a president.
No fucking thank you
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51254351]Trump doesn't have friends in high places? How high are you? He's backed by Peter Thiel one of the most effective lobbying billionaires around.
He's got a life time of lobbying experience.
He will pay, manipulate, lie cheat fraud, all of his business tactics.
As a president.
No fucking thank you[/QUOTE]
High places in government. You can have all the rich friends you want. They don't have direct power over our government. And not everyone who is corruptible is interested in money. Quite a lot are interested in pushing their ideals onto others. Just like they did during the "Red Scare."
By the way, I'm simply arguing that Hillary is a worse threat than Trump when it comes to the Bill of Rights. Both are equally shit and I hope if either comes into the oval office that they will be out within a month of taking it (impeachment).
To be fair, I think freedom of expression should be near unlimited for an individual, but the press holds a de facto power, and a great one at that. The problem is that they're allowed to be irredponsible with that, without getting any potential punishment whatsoever
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.