Trump revives threat to change libel laws - Polidicks

[quote]President Donald Trump is reviving his attacks on news he doesn't like, threatening to target libel laws that govern freedom of the press.[/quote] [url]http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/trump-revives-threat-change-libel-laws-46475043[/url]

Trump is the gift that keeps on giving, it would seem. /s From the article: [QUOTE]At a Texas rally last year, he said he wanted to "open up" U.S. libel laws "so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and [B]win[/B] lots of money."[/QUOTE] His war on fake news continues, but what he doesn't realize is that this can just as easily be turned on him as he could use it on others, because at the end of the day, he's [I]still[/I] a bigger liar than the press. At this point I wonder why he just doesn't drop all pretense and hack the face off the Statue of Liberty and stick his own face on there as a gigantic monument to himself because that's what he seems to think - being the US president is like being God Emperor of earth or something.

What a childish course of action to take. "I don't like what they're saying about me, I should change some laws so I can sue them for harassing me because I never did anything wrong!!". Does he not understand that if he does bad things, he is gonna get criticized for it?

Not only a traitor, but a wannabe fascist, too.

Your commander in chief has spoken! He will sue you and win lots of money if you're mean to him. [editline]30th March 2017[/editline] I still can't believe Donald Trump is president, this is turning into a reality show lmao.

Those that continue to support him are either lacking a spine, or a mind.

[QUOTE=General J;52035261]Those that continue to support him are either lacking a spine, or a mind.[/QUOTE] Most likely both.

[media]https://twitter.com/WestWingReport/status/847635937995612160[/media] [media]https://twitter.com/th3j35t3r/status/847633397090365442[/media] [img]http://i.imgur.com/q1I3f7X.png[/img] Bring it, fuckstick. Your days are numbered. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Fake News/Trump Flaming" - Tudd))[/highlight]

Trump Legal Services, those damn liberals hurt my feelings, sue them for emotional damages, libel, and enough punitive damages that they bleed! Your days are numbered, asshole.

To be honest, I do think American libel laws could stand to be strengthened. People complain all the time about real-"Fake News," like Anti-Vaxxers, the "Obummer's a Mudslim," Hillary Clinton's alleged corruption, and so on, but the moment someone suggests taking steps to legally enforce honest reporting on [I]any[/I] level, people whip around and act like anything that could possibly even mildly inconvenience, "the press," is a blasphemy upon the Constitution. However, things like repealing [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine"]the Fairness Doctrine,[/URL] or [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996"]the Telecom act of '96,[/URL] both show a steady, bi-partisan effort to create a habitat for Media Conglomerates that have no actual, legally binding obligation to even factual reporting or guarantee access to such information. I do not approve of Donald Trump. I think he's an idiot with the world's biggest bullhorn and the world's most well guilded soapbox. However, I do not automatically think everything that Trump desires or talks about it bullshit just because Trump said it. He nominally supports things, like Congressional Term Limits, Media Regulation Reform, and Infrastructure ideas, that I do genuinely support in a non-partisan way. Now of course, he may be lying flatly, and have no intention to deliver those promises, but at least he's promising [I]something[/I] as opposed to just telling me directly he'll piss on my shoes. More to the point, if we believe that disinformation, propoganda, and the spread of real, harmful lies are a threat that face society, then we [B]must[/B] desire laws and regulations that will help us combat those things in a constructive manner that still impartially guards free speech. I think that is 100% doable, and that the current state of the American media landscape is not just, "free" but so near a state of Anarchy that it has indulged in a corpulent excess of "freedom." People who trust in "good media," whether it's NYTimes or NPR to somehow pull us up from this quagmire are, in my opinion, just as deluded as people who believe the Free Market would pave highways and stop crime. It's an answer that takes the same form, "I somehow believe a vague sense of meritocracy and human good will can stop bad stuff from happening with no need for anything else, the end."

[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;52035773]However, I do not automatically think everything that Trump desires or talks about it bullshit just because Trump said it. [/QUOTE] As long as we are assuming peoples thoughts, I really don't think this is the case for most. I think if a generally well liked politician suggested that we [QUOTE] "open up" U.S. libel laws "so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money."[/QUOTE] people would be on edge. Then consider that the hypothetical politician in question categorizes "false" articles merely as ones that are critical of him, and has described the authors of these articles as "enemies of the people".

[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;52035773]To be honest, I do think American libel laws could stand to be strengthened. People complain all the time about real-"Fake News," like Anti-Vaxxers, the "Obummer's a Mudslim," Hillary Clinton's alleged corruption, and so on, but the moment someone suggests taking steps to legally enforce honest reporting on [I]any[/I] level, people whip around and act like anything that could possibly even mildly inconvenience, "the press," is a blasphemy upon the Constitution. However, things like repealing [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine"]the Fairness Doctrine,[/URL] or [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996"]the Telecom act of '96,[/URL] both show a steady, bi-partisan effort to create a habitat for Media Conglomerates that have no actual, legally binding obligation to even factual reporting or guarantee access to such information. I do not approve of Donald Trump. I think he's an idiot with the world's biggest bullhorn and the world's most well guilded soapbox. However, I do not automatically think everything that Trump desires or talks about it bullshit just because Trump said it. He nominally supports things, like Congressional Term Limits, Media Regulation Reform, and Infrastructure ideas, that I do genuinely support in a non-partisan way. Now of course, he may be lying flatly, and have no intention to deliver those promises, but at least he's promising [I]something[/I] as opposed to just telling me directly he'll piss on my shoes. More to the point, if we believe that disinformation, propoganda, and the spread of real, harmful lies are a threat that face society, then we [B]must[/B] desire laws and regulations that will help us combat those things in a constructive manner that still impartially guards free speech. I think that is 100% doable, and that the current state of the American media landscape is not just, "free" but so near a state of Anarchy that it has indulged in a corpulent excess of "freedom." People who trust in "good media," whether it's NYTimes or NPR to somehow pull us up from this quagmire are, in my opinion, just as deluded as people who believe the Free Market would pave highways and stop crime. It's an answer that takes the same form, "I somehow believe a vague sense of meritocracy and human good will can stop bad stuff from happening with no need for anything else, the end."[/QUOTE] Even when an idea is good, it's generally a good idea to consider who's going to be executing the idea. Trump has made his disdain of the media pretty clear and he's pretty consistent in attacking nearly anyone that disagrees with him. If this was a president who hadn't been making a point to constantly attack his critics it might not be a bad idea to take a look at libel laws, but considering the current administration it's not hard to see why people would be wary of any attempt right now.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;52035838]As long as we are assuming peoples thoughts, I really don't think this is the case for most. I think if a generally well liked politician suggested that we people would be on edge. Then consider that the hypothetical politician in question categorizes "false" articles merely as ones that are critical of him, and has described the authors of these articles as "enemies of the people".[/QUOTE] I genuinely think the substance of your post is essentially the problem. You are all in on caring about the rhetoric and the style, and don't seem to care about the [I]problem.[/I] I don't care if Donald Trump says he wants to strengthen libel laws so that he can head down to the main offices of the NY Times and blast the Editor in the face with a shotgun in self defense of his tiny, tiny hands. As far as I can tell, everyone is in agreement on the fact that Donald Trump's an [I]idiot.[/I] However, that doesn't mean America's libel laws [B]aren't[/B] shamefully weak. I agree with Donald Trump on that principle. And you know what? I don't believe a "generally well liked" politician would [I]say[/I] anything about libel, or media regulation, because as far as I can tell the "Media," whatever entity you want to call it, is not a public estate anymore. CNN didn't run any "The Democrats are threatening Democracy" articles when they changed Cabinet Confirmations from 60 Senatorial votes to 50. Fox News hasn't run any "John McCain is a bloodthirsty TYRANT!" articles when he called for an even [I]larger[/I] military budget. Far as I call tell, "well liked" politicians are quite enamored with the idea of having a partisinally divided media that on one side conveniently ignores what they do when they do it, and on the other side gets completely disregarded by their base because it's, "those damn liars over at XYZ." I'm not "assuming people's thoughts," in so much as, as far as I can tell, nobody seems to give a damn about the issue and is much happier zingering the Orange and polishing their hate-wood. Show me who here stepped up to say, "you know what? I think yeah, maybe Don's on to something," rather than appealing to or cheering for the blatant fear-mongering of, "zomg he's gonna wreck free speech tooo noooo LOCK HIM UP." As for the above post, I have every respect for the role and need of a functional Media in a Democracy. However, to pretend that the Media has been playing "fair and balanced" with Trump is just as asinine as people who might claim Trump is being "unfairly bullied" by them. There's a clear and demonstrable trend to over-sensationalize essentially every aspect of Trump's [I]existence[/I], and I think it's no reach or stretch to say, "that probably is because it gets them views and appeases their target audience." While people worry over whether or not Trump will throw out a pitch at a ball game, Russia just cracked down on a national anti-corruption protest, and China just cracked down on Religious expression. And I do think you can care about all three of those things, [I]if you want,[/I] but from where I'm standing two of those definitely deserve more air time than, "Will Trump break a neat little tradition?" I could go on, there's plenty of things for me to point to. The brief, sensational murmuring over whether or not Trump [I]owned a bathrobe[/I] was, I think, a low point.

Ironic yet obvious that Trump is the choice of free speech proponents, yet would rather clamp down on free speech to protect his ego. I would love it if he were to get the libel laws tightened and it would get him in trouble for lying so much and raise journalistic standards too. Cautiously optimistic.

Let's fight this to the bloody end.

[QUOTE=snookypookums;52035176] His war on fake news continues, but what he doesn't realize is that this can just as easily be turned on him as he could use it on others, because at the end of the day, he's [I]still[/I] a bigger liar than the press. [/QUOTE] Seriously I don't see how this is a bad thing. The media IS, in fact, full of shit. What better way to stop them than revoke their ability to say whatever the fuck they want? As long as it's a public power to sue and not a government one I fail to see an issue, especially when it relies on court evidence. Trump or not this is a good thing if well-written.

[QUOTE=gk99;52036949]Seriously I don't see how this is a bad thing. The media IS, in fact, full of shit. What better way to stop them than revoke their ability to say whatever the fuck they want? As long as it's a public power to sue and not a government one I fail to see an issue, especially when it relies on court evidence. Trump or not this is a good thing if well-written.[/QUOTE] Do you really expect trump to be a part of a perfectly fair and balanced legislation directed at the media? Where do you draw the line at what is allowed to be said or not said? Who's in charge of the oversight and able to enforce it in an unbiased manner?

[QUOTE=gk99;52036949]Seriously I don't see how this is a bad thing. The media IS, in fact, full of shit. What better way to stop them than revoke their ability to say whatever the fuck they want? As long as it's a public power to sue and not a government one I fail to see an issue, especially when it relies on court evidence. Trump or not this is a good thing if well-written.[/QUOTE] "If well-written" is quite a qualifier.