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.
if the press lies an slanders somebody then they should be liable in civil court.
a dictator bypasses Congress, DEXTER.....Maybe you should take American Civics 101.
The Press does not have complete immunity from lawsuits.
This was discussed earlier in the thread. American libel law is organized around a three-part test. For a claim to be libelous, it must be 1) false; 2) defamatory; 3) published with actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth.
Nothing I have read that is critical to Trump is false. Because a claim must be false to be libelous, truth is an absolute defense against libel. In other words, it's not libel just because Trump cries and whines. But it sure sounds like Trump wants to change the law, so that any criticism of him is actionable.
Please tell me exactly how Mr. Trump can change the First Amendment libel jurisprudence on his own? Even a super conservative new Justice would never uphold such a silly Executive Order, and no Congress would ever pass such law either. Liberals and conservatives would unite . . . . a miracle.
if the press lies an slanders somebody then they should be liable in civil court.
Of course they should be liable. And of course they *are* liable.
Keep in mind that if Trump ever got what he seems to be asking for - limits on the extent to which media can criticize public figures - that people like the Clintons and Obama would also have lots of grounds for lawsuits against the media. Because "the media" doesn't include just the NYT and WaPo. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like that.
So, the case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan isn't about newspapers? What do you think the New York Times does, sell hamburgers?
Sorry, that's utterly wrong. No offense. That's kinda like saying the Oberkfell case did not apply to lesbian marriage cases, because that was a man-man same sex marriage ruling. Sure there are "narrow rulings" but the SCOTUS did not limit NYT v Sullivan to newspaper cases. I mean, do we want different rules for newspapers v. circulars v. magazines v. books v. pamphlets?
When Trump lies are we going to take him to court too? He's the biggest liar in the race
That's an interesting legal question. There is no requirement that a politician has to tell the truth, except under sworn testimony. If there was, Trump would be in deep trouble as he has told whoppers. (http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/)
In addition, if the lie isn't defamatory, it isn't actionable either. So, if a politician lies about his tax-plan, that's not actionable as nobody is being defamed.
Moreover, the people that Trump has defamed are other politicians, such as Cruz and Rubio. They are covered by the public figure doctrine. In Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U.S. 265, 91 S. Ct. 621, 28 L. Ed. 2d 35 (1971), the Court found that a candidate for public office fell within the category of public officials (from NYT v Sullivan) who must prove actual malice in order to recover. I think the statements made by Trump against other candidates can be considered slander.
Sorry, that's utterly wrong. No offense. That's kinda like saying the Oberkfell case did not apply to lesbian marriage cases, because that was a man-man same sex marriage ruling. Sure there are "narrow rulings" but the SCOTUS did not limit NYT v Sullivan to newspaper cases. I mean, do we want different rules for newspapers v. circulars v. magazines v. books v. pamphlets?
Mick
I think you are misinterpreting my words. My use of 'newspaper' is shorthand for 'the press.' This isn't a legal brief or a doctoral dissertation that I am writing. It's an internet forum post.
Of course they should be liable. And of course they *are* liable.
Keep in mind that if Trump ever got what he seems to be asking for - limits on the extent to which media can criticize public figures - that people like the Clintons and Obama would also have lots of grounds for lawsuits against the media. Because "the media" doesn't include just the NYT and WaPo. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like that.
This is the essential problem with fanaticism. People don't think far ahead. They think Elections are like sport matches or movies. Your candidate is not gonna be president for eternity.
The same laws that would shelter your candidate now, might protect another candidate you might not like in the future.
I bet many Trump supporters would hate these laws if they were used to protect Michelle Obama or Chelsea Clinton when they run for president in the future.
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.
