Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-10-2018, 11:29 PM
 
13,212 posts, read 21,827,501 times
Reputation: 14126

Advertisements

Everyone should this this message by John Sargent, CEO of Macmillan, concerning Trump's shameful and unconstitutional attempt at suppressing Wolff's book. The letter was initially directed at his employees and is being widely circulated.

Message from John Sargent: Fire and Fury

Last Thursday, shortly after 7:00 a.m., we received a demand from the President of the United States to "immediately cease and desist from any further publication, release or dissemination" of Michael Wolff's Fire and Fury. On Thursday afternoon we responded with a short statement saying that we would publish the book, and we moved the pub date forward to the next day. Later today we will send our legal response to President Trump.

Our response is firm, as it has to be. I am writing you today to explain why this is a matter of great importance. It is about much more than Fire and Fury.

The president is free to call news "fake" and to blast the media. That goes against convention, but it is not unconstitutional. But a demand to cease and desist publication-a clear effort by the President of the United States to intimidate a publisher into halting publication of an important book on the workings of the government-is an attempt to achieve what is called prior restraint. That is something that no American court would order as it is flagrantly unconstitutional.

This is very clearly defined in Supreme Court case law, most prominently in the Pentagon Papers case. As Justice Hugo Black explained in his concurrence:

"Both the history and language of the First Amendment support the view that the press must be left free to publish news, whatever the source, without censorship, injunctions, or prior restraints. In the First Amendment, the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government."

Then there is Justice William Brennan's opinion in The New York Times Co. v. Sullivan:

"Thus we consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials."

And finally Chief Justice Warren Burger in another landmark case:

"The thread running through all these cases is that prior restraints on speech and publication are the most serious and least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights."

There is no ambiguity here. This is an underlying principle of our democracy. We cannot stand silent. We will not allow any president to achieve by intimidation what our Constitution precludes him or her from achieving in court. We need to respond strongly for Michael Wolff and his book, but also for all authors and all their books, now and in the future. And as citizens we must demand that President Trump understand and abide by the First Amendment of our Constitution.

- John
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-10-2018, 11:36 PM
 
Location: Lost in Montana *recalculating*...
19,757 posts, read 22,661,296 times
Reputation: 24910
Well I agree. It's clear 1st Amendment protected, period.

Any opinion to the contrary is against the Constitution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2018, 04:02 AM
 
51,652 posts, read 25,813,568 times
Reputation: 37889
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdog View Post
Everyone should this this message by John Sargent, CEO of Macmillan, concerning Trump's shameful and unconstitutional attempt at suppressing Wolff's book. The letter was initially directed at his employees and is being widely circulated.

Message from John Sargent: Fire and Fury

Last Thursday, shortly after 7:00 a.m., we received a demand from the President of the United States to "immediately cease and desist from any further publication, release or dissemination" of Michael Wolff's Fire and Fury. On Thursday afternoon we responded with a short statement saying that we would publish the book, and we moved the pub date forward to the next day. Later today we will send our legal response to President Trump.

Our response is firm, as it has to be. I am writing you today to explain why this is a matter of great importance. It is about much more than Fire and Fury.

The president is free to call news "fake" and to blast the media. That goes against convention, but it is not unconstitutional. But a demand to cease and desist publication-a clear effort by the President of the United States to intimidate a publisher into halting publication of an important book on the workings of the government-is an attempt to achieve what is called prior restraint. That is something that no American court would order as it is flagrantly unconstitutional.

This is very clearly defined in Supreme Court case law, most prominently in the Pentagon Papers case. As Justice Hugo Black explained in his concurrence:

"Both the history and language of the First Amendment support the view that the press must be left free to publish news, whatever the source, without censorship, injunctions, or prior restraints. In the First Amendment, the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government."

Then there is Justice William Brennan's opinion in The New York Times Co. v. Sullivan:

"Thus we consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials."

And finally Chief Justice Warren Burger in another landmark case:

"The thread running through all these cases is that prior restraints on speech and publication are the most serious and least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights."

There is no ambiguity here. This is an underlying principle of our democracy. We cannot stand silent. We will not allow any president to achieve by intimidation what our Constitution precludes him or her from achieving in court. We need to respond strongly for Michael Wolff and his book, but also for all authors and all their books, now and in the future. And as citizens we must demand that President Trump understand and abide by the First Amendment of our Constitution.

- John
Amen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2018, 06:40 AM
 
Location: North of Canada, but not the Arctic
21,131 posts, read 19,707,707 times
Reputation: 25644
I value the right to privacy higher than the right to know what other people do in private.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2018, 07:55 AM
 
13,898 posts, read 6,443,819 times
Reputation: 6960
Too bad the book is full of BS. Maybe the publisher should acknowledge that too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2018, 07:58 AM
 
51,652 posts, read 25,813,568 times
Reputation: 37889
Still standing behind the First Amendment or not?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2018, 07:59 AM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
32,101 posts, read 34,714,145 times
Reputation: 15093
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retroit View Post
I value the right to privacy higher than the right to know what other people do in private.
The POTUS is not a private citizen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2018, 08:02 AM
 
Location: In a George Strait Song
9,546 posts, read 7,070,563 times
Reputation: 14046
Since when does the First Amemdmwmt allow someone to make up lies about a person and publish it as truth?

The author himself writes in the prologue that he isn't sure what is true or not.

Or are libel and slander not a big deal?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2018, 08:03 AM
 
18,983 posts, read 9,073,833 times
Reputation: 14688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dbones View Post
Too bad the book is full of BS. Maybe the publisher should acknowledge that too.
Whether you believe that or not has nothing to do with this. I believe most of what Ann Coulter publishes is BS, too, yet no one attempts to stop her from publishing it. Because in America, we cherish our freedom of the press. If you don't think it's important to protect this bedrock of our Constitution you shouldn't call yourself an American.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2018, 08:08 AM
 
51,652 posts, read 25,813,568 times
Reputation: 37889
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAMS14 View Post
Whether you believe that or not has nothing to do with this. I believe most of what Ann Coulter publishes is BS, too, yet no one attempts to stop her from publishing it. Because in America, we cherish our freedom of the press. If you don't think it's important to protect this bedrock of our Constitution you shouldn't call yourself an American.
Indeed.

Breitbart publishes BS attacks all the time.

Fox is about 50-50 BS. Napolitano accused the Brits of wiretapping Trump on Fox. Brits told them to knock it off. Napolitano still on Fox.

Trump tweets libelous lies and slanderous insults on a daily basis.

To get your knickers in a knot over a book that lays out what we've all seen with our own eyes is just ridiculous.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:37 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top