Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The standard for suing a newspaper was decided in the Supreme Court case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). In that case, it was decided that a newspaper can be sued for libel if the newspaper in actual malice.
The court held that:
In other words, a public official cannot sue for libel for journalists reporting on their conduct as officials of the government. That is correct and that is against what Trump wants. What Trump wants is immunity from criticism -- a principle antagonistic to the meaning of the First Amendment protection of the press. As the court further ruled, "The question before us is whether this rule of liability, as applied to an action brought by a public official against critics of his official conduct, abridges the freedom of speech and of the press that is guaranteed by the first and Fourteenth Amendments."
We all know the Supreme Court has granted first amendment rights to Businesses, i.e. Citizens United, but you dont stop babbling non stop about how wrong that decision is..
If the above was directed at the OP, me, I already know quite a bit about the topic. Thank you very much. If you are making a point, please make it, instead of directing to a link.
In my view, there is no problem that needs fixing, with regard to libel and public figures. As it stands, newspapers are free to both report and criticize the conduct of public figures to the extent that it is not done with malicious intent. That's a proper interpretation of the First Amendment protection. As a check on government officials, we don't want officials using the fear of libel suits to muzzlethe press' criticism of official behavior. The public interest is best served when the press is free.
As it applies to Mr. Trump, it appears he wants his cake and to be able to eat it too. He wants the freedom to say the most distasteful and defamatory statements about people HE doesn't like but he wants to be protected from the press for reporting on him. That viewpoint is contrary and repugnant to our constitution.
Ahhh, so only newspapers are entitled to first amendment rights, but not other businesses?
Interesting, as one of the principles of fascism is forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism.
The fact that Trump quotes Mussolini is also telling of his latent side.
That's exactly why Trump's idea that making it possible for government officials to sue newspapers is such an affront to our freedoms.
But Obama, quoting the Koran, means absolutely nothing, right?
We all know the Supreme Court has granted first amendment rights to Businesses, i.e. Citizens United, but you dont stop babbling non stop about how wrong that decision is..
Genius, the words "the press" is specifically mentioned in the constitution. The word "corporations" are not. That's the obvious difference but thank you for trying to change the subject.
Genius, the words "the press" is specifically mentioned in the constitution. The word "corporations" are not. That's the obvious difference but thank you for trying to change the subject.
Genius.. the press, are corporations.
so you think only SOME corporations should have rights? Worse than that, you think some businesses shouldnt have rights, while others, classified as "the Press", should be granted uncontrollable rights..
But Obama, quoting the Koran, means absolutely nothing, right?
Is there something wrong with quoting the Koran? It's a religious book read by a billion people. It's a bit different than quoting the words of a fascist. If you can't notice the difference, that says volumes about you.
Is there something wrong with quoting the Koran? It's a religious book read by a billion people. It's a bit different than quoting the words of a fascist. If you can't notice the difference, that says volumes about you.
The Koran, along with many other bibles, sure do have a lot of hate involved.
I note though, you flip flopping constantly into justifying one person doing the exact same thing you attack others for doing..
I guess you failed logic in school. The press can be corporations but the press can also be individual journalists. In any case, a newspaper may be a corporation and the newspaper is specifically protected by the First Amendment. That doesn't imply that all corporations are protected by the First Amendment. But I note your need to make an argument that twists logic into a pretzel.
I guess you failed logic in school. The press can be corporations but the press can also be individual journalists. In any case, a newspaper may be a corporation and the newspaper is specifically protected by the First Amendment. That doesn't imply that all corporations are protected by the First Amendment. But I note your need to make an argument that twists logic into a pretzel.
That ended your argument right there...
You flip flop into wanting some corporations to have ZERO rights, while others, uncontrollable rights to say whatever the hell they want, true or not...
I'm glad I dont have to go through such great lengths to justify non stop flip flopping like you do...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
