• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump threatens to 'change libel laws' to go after NY Times

Redress said:
By "going big", you mean ignoring the constitution?
Click to expand...

Ya I am not crazy about Trumps lack of fidelity to the Constitution, I had hoped for better, but in his defense I note that almost no one else is either.


EDIT: We the People must support the Constitution, and demand that everyone else does does too, something that we have not done...until we do the undermining that promise is what we are going to get, as any damn fool should know.
 
Last edited:
Fearandloathing said:
Yeah, pooh guy can't just have people arrested like he wanted to. Life really suck's for the rich and powerful
Click to expand...

What's the use of being fabulously wealthy if the same laws apply to you as apply to poor people? Has the word 'elite' no meaning anymore?
 
rocket88 said:
Really? I haven't seen that. Care to elucidate?
Click to expand...

Not especially as I have been making this argument since I got here, and this would not be the thread for that endeavor. I might be willing to jump back into it if we can collect a few people who care to argue the point with civility.
 
Midwest Lib said:
What exactly are you suggesting as a solution? Echo chambers exist on both sides.
Click to expand...


When the most influential news outlet in the US stops it’s journalistic calling and becomes the lunatic lefts and democratic party sounding board there is an issue. Leaning left is one thing but blatant partizan activism is another. And you may want to re-think the echo chamber analogy, the scale of information is so heavily tilted to the left that It’s not even close or worth discussion.

Do I have a solution you ask? well no, I don’t sorry… That would be like asking me if I had a solution to change the minds and faulty thought process of every liberal,progressive or want to be socialist in the country.
 
Grand Mal said:
What's the use of being fabulously wealthy if the same laws apply to you as apply to poor people? Has the word 'elite' no meaning anymore?
Click to expand...

We do need to pin down a definition, which is more difficult than most imagine.

I have not been able to do it in a way that I am happy with.
 
matchlight said:
Since when can a President not use his office to propose changes in the laws? FDR, for example, did it more than once. President Trump will probably get to place at least two justices on the Supreme Court. He might be interested in nominees who had expressed views about defamation that resemble his own. The Court might one day modify the rules from New York Times v. Sullivan so that state laws making libel suits against public figures more likely to succeed would pass constitutional muster.
Click to expand...



Please list the names of presidents who have said they were going to attack the country's libel and slander laws.

Your post is typical of the limited thinking of the Trump right, or wrong if you prefer. Reduce everything to its most idiotically simple and then attack whoever is against the idea.

But you lie when you suggest this is just another law a president can change. Trump, with his extremely limited grasp of legal knowledge and experience is attacking one of the primary aspects of democracy.

You will be calling a different tune is he succeeds. People like you are always surprised when they get what they thought they wanted in the line of legal controls on people.
 
Fearandloathing said:
Please list the names of presidents who have said they were going to attack the country's libel and slander laws.

Your post is typical of the limited thinking of the Trump right, or wrong if you prefer. Reduce everything to its most idiotically simple and then attack whoever is against the idea.

But you lie when you suggest this is just another law a president can change. Trump, with his extremely limited grasp of legal knowledge and experience is attacking one of the primary aspects of democracy.

You will be calling a different tune is he succeeds. People like you are always surprised when they get what they thought they wanted in the line of legal controls on people.
Click to expand...

Europe has long had more strict libel laws, and they are sure that they are more advanced than America, maybe they are right.
 
woodsman said:
The NYTs has been ridiculously biased against Trump or any GOP member. Their editorial page does cross the line into libel on a regular basis. This is not freedom of the press or even journalism, It’s a sounding board for the lunatic left and the democratic party.
Click to expand...



Really?

I say you're lying. I say the New York Times hasn't come anywhere near violating the law, which is why the spoiled brat wants to shut them down.


So do something that isn't your usually brand of Trump BULL****, and post the "regular basis" acts of libel.

Then, you can document your expertise and background in journalism. From where is your degree, and where have you worked, please show that you passed the classes on libel and slander.

Then we can have a conversation.

Otherwise I see youas just another Trump supporter....and in my experience every ****ing one of them lies, bull****s, fabricates and and manufactures mis-information against their "enemies".

I won't hold my breath. I doubt you've ever read the NYT, and probably wouldn't know where to get an issue
 
TheGoverness said:
Trump threatens to 'change libel laws' to go after NY Times | TheHill



Here's the most recent crazy Donald Trump tweet. Once again, Trump is advocating for changing libel laws because the NYT keeps "getting him wrong" (AKA makes articles about him that he doesn't personally like). I hope he realises by now that he has no power do change or "open up" libel laws, since they are regulated at the state level. I know it would be great for you if every media outlet was like Fox & Friends, but that's not gonna happen.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Trump has no power to change any law. He can only make and rescind executive orders and is constitutionally limited in what he can legally do with those.

But I agree with him that there should be some way to deal with an unethical or irresponsible media who deliberately and with malice publishes erroneous information or information in a way to give a very different impression from what actually happened. Nobody should be able to commit deliberate and malicious libel or slander with impunity under the banner of the 'free press.'
 
Fearandloathing said:
Really?

I say you're lying. I say the New York Times hasn't come anywhere near violating the law, which is why the spoiled brat wants to shut them down.


So do something that isn't your usually brand of Trump BULL****, and post the "regular basis" acts of libel.

Then, you can document your expertise and background in journalism. From where is your degree, and where have you worked, please show that you passed the classes on libel and slander.

Then we can have a conversation.

Otherwise I see youas just another Trump supporter....and in my experience every ****ing one of them lies, bull****s, fabricates and and manufactures mis-information against their "enemies".

I won't hold my breath. I doubt you've ever read the NYT, and probably wouldn't know where to get an issue
Click to expand...


Geez all this because the editorial page of the NYTs is biased and without any journalistic value, Triggered much?
 
woodsman said:
Geez all this because the editorial page of the NYTs is biased and without any journalistic value, Triggered much?
Click to expand...

The editorials are opinon. They aren't supposed to be objective or unbiased.
 
I think this whole clown show goes deeper.

It is my firm belief that no matter who won, Hillary or Trump, they were both likely to be one term presidents.

For me, I believe it's possible that all of this bluster of Trumps, is not about today, or next week or next year.

This is about the next election.

Think about it, even though he won the election he still attacked the democratic process with lies and falsehoods, think about what he's attacked so far.

The electoral process.
The media.
The court system.

The three things that could potentially threaten his power in the next election, and he will do his best to undermine all three, he's not likely to succeed with libel laws, you can only do so much with congress and he's already failed on healthcare, folks even in his own party are unlikely to do him that favor.
 
Winston said:
Also, didn't Trump just libel Obama?
Click to expand...

Yeah, he certainly did with the wiretapping BS, and the whole 'must be a kenyan' crap years ago
 
Hawkeye10 said:
95% of the time I think I know exactly what Trump is trying to do with Twitter usually with me approving, and while there was a time when I thought that he should give it up that has passed, I dont think he has any chance of beating the elite without it.
Click to expand...

Yep. Twitter is the perfect tool for trump. I don't think he can think past 150 characters, nor can many of his supporters.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Europe has long had more strict libel laws, and they are sure that they are more advanced than America, maybe they are right.
Click to expand...



America's "libel" laws are different from anywhere else as I understand. I suspect that means things are a lot looser there. What I have been told is that if you are famous, the press can say anything they like about you and do not have to 'make an effort' to document what is at issue...hence tabloid journalism ala supermarket check outs.

That changes by degrees in "commonwealth" countries. Opinion is usually pretty open UNLESS it can be shown there has been a campaign of slander then you are toast.

In hard news, I would say we are too tight, but that is the reporter talking, amid frustrations that you know politicians who have broken the law but can do or say nothing as none of your evidence will stand up in court. Sometimes, even sticking to the facts will get you in trouble, if it can be shown that your theme is to lower someone in the eyes of the public.

But the Ludites in the Trump camp do not understand that libel laws are there to protect everyone from everyone. An individual can and often does cross the line. Trump's "Obama wiretapped me" might become a criminal investigation here as we have such a thing as 'criminal libel'

I can say no politician in Canada would escape a full bore RCMP investigation after "Obama wiretapped me" as it one, it alleges criminal activities, 2) potentially libels whoever wiretapped and suggests other crimes such as aiding and abetting and conspiracy.

What's odd, is that as a reporter I can say someone is being investigated for the libel, and like the US, cannot repeat the libel...but also cannot say or suggest it is illegal; that would be libel.
 
Gaius46 said:
Yep. Twitter is the perfect tool for trump. I don't think he can think past 150 characters, nor can many of his supporters.
Click to expand...

How did you come upon this low opinion of IVY Schools?
 
Hawkeye10 said:
We have to fix journalism, we cant fix America without doing that as one of the first things, but no as a free speech free mind guy this would not be my first option, and it is very uncertain that I could ever be talked into supporting it. HOWEVER, I fully support Trump driving his argument that we should, we need to figure something out, and I want everyone to come forward to argue for what they envision to be solutions.
Click to expand...

The problem for him, and this is where you mistake his argument, is that "figure something out" would mean to end the partisan hackery from limbaugh and friends that so strongly supports his party. They really did start all this resurgence of yellow journalism

So of course what he really means is to intimidate and censor his opposition only, a lot like a dictator would

He won't succeed though because this isn't Russia or Saudi and he may as well just stop whining and try taking some accountability for mistakes and just ignoring 'fake news'
 
TheGoverness said:
The editorials are opinon. They aren't supposed to be objective or unbiased.
Click to expand...


The NYTs political hard news is as biased as it gets, the only difference between the so called hard news and editorial is the fluff to get the naive to believe that crap, are you one that does?

Take note, journalism is dead and has been for a long time, both right and left.
 
chromium said:
The problem for him, and this is where you mistake his argument, is that "figure something out" would mean to end the partisan hackery from limbaugh and friends that so strongly supports his party. They really did start all this resurgence of yellow journalism

So of course what he really means is to intimidate and censor his opposition only, a lot like a dictator would

He won't succeed though because this isn't Russia or Saudi and he may as well just stop whining and try taking some accountability for mistakes and just ignoring 'fake news'
Click to expand...

Journalism was deep into decline long before Limbaugh came along. C-Span was started in 1979 in part in an effort to counteract that decline.
 
Fearandloathing said:
America's "libel" laws are different from anywhere else as I understand. I suspect that means things are a lot looser there. What I have been told is that if you are famous, the press can say anything they like about you and do not have to 'make an effort' to document what is at issue...hence tabloid journalism ala supermarket check outs.

That changes by degrees in "commonwealth" countries. Opinion is usually pretty open UNLESS it can be shown there has been a campaign of slander then you are toast.

In hard news, I would say we are too tight, but that is the reporter talking, amid frustrations that you know politicians who have broken the law but can do or say nothing as none of your evidence will stand up in court. Sometimes, even sticking to the facts will get you in trouble, if it can be shown that your theme is to lower someone in the eyes of the public.

But the Ludites in the Trump camp do not understand that libel laws are there to protect everyone from everyone. An individual can and often does cross the line. Trump's "Obama wiretapped me" might become a criminal investigation here as we have such a thing as 'criminal libel'

I can say no politician in Canada would escape a full bore RCMP investigation after "Obama wiretapped me" as it one, it alleges criminal activities, 2) potentially libels whoever wiretapped and suggests other crimes such as aiding and abetting and conspiracy.

What's odd, is that as a reporter I can say someone is being investigated for the libel, and like the US, cannot repeat the libel...but also cannot say or suggest it is illegal; that would be libel.
Click to expand...

Isn't there something about the floor in the House of Commons, whereby you can say whatever you want about someone and can't be sued for it? Or is it you can't be charged? Something, that's lost to my fading brain capacity...
 
woodsman said:
Geez all this because the editorial page of the NYTs is biased and without any journalistic value, Triggered much?
Click to expand...

Once again, what is your authority? You once walked past a newsstand that had yesterday's NYT?

I could care less about your cheap shots about triggers, and yeah, it does. I was in the business for over 30 years and having mindless ****wads like Trump and the people he hires out of the gutter attacking a noble profession. A profession of which you appear to be ignorant.

I gave you a chance to list your CV, [that's a kind if resume'] and instead you cowardly shot back a cheap shot.

Like everything and everyone in the Trump camp, you are without honor, without truth and without the courage of your convictions to even back up your lies.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
How did you come upon this low opinion of IVY Schools?
Click to expand...

You mean the places where few do support Trump and they have vowed to go around his travel bans? It's called "legacy" Same way Bush got in

Anyway that was 50 years ago and the standards are way more rigorous today. Few of these old timers in government could get in and keep afloat even with their daddies' wallet and influence
 
Hawkeye10 said:
How did you come upon this low opinion of IVY Schools?
Click to expand...

I don't have a low opinion of Ivy League schools - or Fordham University, my alma mater which the President attended for 2 years. I have a low opinion of the President.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom