Trump's latest promise: Weaken the 1st Amendment

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

JPK

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2010
Messages
401
Reaction score
10
Location
Slaughterville
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ken-libel-laws-amid-feuds-with-reporters.html

feuds with reporters
Published February 27, 2016 Associated Press
Facebook798 Twitter0 livefyre1262 Email Print

Feeling maligned by the media, Donald Trump is threatening to weaken First Amendment protections for reporters if he were president and make it easier for him to sue them.

"I love free press. I think it's great," he said Saturday on Fox News Channel, before quickly adding, "We ought to open up the libel laws, and I'm going to do that."

The changes envisioned by the celebrity businessman turned Republican front-runner would mean that "when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money," he said at a rally Friday in Fort Worth, Texas.

Trump added that, should he win the election, news organizations that have criticized him will "have problems." He specifically cited The New York Times and The Washington Post.

Trump last month threatened to sue the Post after the newspaper wrote an article about the bankruptcy of his Atlantic City casino. On Twitter, Trump has routinely criticized reporters who cover him and their news organizations, including The Associated Press.

"The press has to be fair," he said in the broadcast interview.

First Amendment advocates condemned Trump's suggestions.

"His statement shows why we need libel protections," said Gregg Leslie, legal defense director for the Washington-based Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. "Trump gets offended, he gets upset and he wants to sue to retaliate. That's not a good reason to sue someone."

Libel law in the United States generally makes it difficult for public figures to sue reporters or other people who criticize them. To win such a case, the plaintiff must demonstrate that factually incorrect statements were made with actual malice or a reckless disregard for the truth.

Trump said he would like to lower that standard. "We're going to have people sue you like you never got sued before," he said.

Because the Supreme Court has repeatedly endorsed the existing legal standard, Trump could not change libel laws as they affect public figures by executive order or even with an act of Congress, Leslie said.

"I've never heard of politicians say they would repeal case law established under the First Amendment," he said. "You'd really need a constitutional amendment to do that."

Trump's comments on libel law are not the first time he has disagreed with widely held conceptions of constitutional law. Last year, he said he saw no obstacle to deporting children born to undocumented immigrants in the United States.

Courts have regularly found that such children are natural born citizens entitled to the same rights as any other American. Trump has said he does not believe a constitutional amendment would be necessary to get his way.

"You don't have to do a constitutional amendment. You need an act of Congress. I'm telling you -- you need an act of Congress," he said in an interview with Bill O'Reilly of Fox News last year.
 

Johnny

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Sep 8, 2010
Messages
5,066
Reaction score
1,194
Location
Fort Gibson
He is a clown. He is not what America needs. I am still afraid that if he doesn't get the nomination he will stay in as independent and screw the pooch for the election and we will have a whore as a first gentleman.
 

Dave70968

In Remembrance 2024
Special Hen
Joined
Aug 17, 2010
Messages
6,676
Reaction score
4,620
Location
Norman
Marc Randazza is the real deal in the First Amendment world. Read what he has to say: http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/28/opinions/trump-first-amendment-protections-opinion-randazza/index.html
Marc J. Randazza is a Las Vegas-based First Amendment attorney and managing partner of the Randazza Legal Group. Follow him on Twitter: @marcorandazza. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his.

(CNN)Donald Trump has said a lot of strange things -- some funny, some creepy, but none scarier than what he said on Friday: that if he is elected president, he will "open up our libel laws" to make it easier to sue the media and "win lots of money." No matter what you may think about his other policy ideas, if he keeps this promise, we won't be able to effectively express dissent against anything else he might want to do. We can fight any bad policy if we have a robust First Amendment.

Some say that Trump is just being a blowhard, that he doesn't know what he is talking about, and that for all his bluster, there is nothing he could or would do.

I am not so sure. Trump has a history of filing SLAPP suits. SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. This describes a lawsuit filed against someone for exercising his or her First Amendment rights -- filed with little chance of success, but with the knowledge that the lawsuit itself is the punishment. After all, if people have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend themselves because they criticized Donald Trump, they might think better of doing so again in the future.

However, some states, like California and Nevada, have strong anti-SLAPP laws, which dispense with such cases early and force the plaintiff to pay the defendant's attorneys' fees. (Full disclosure: I was instrumental in urging passage of the Nevada Anti-SLAPP law.)

Trump recently got stung with an anti-SLAPP decision, which he probably had in mind when he spoke about "opening up" our libel laws. In fact, he isn't the first big shot to try to make it easier to sue for defamation after having a SLAPP suit blow up in his face.

Therefore, Trump is clearly frustrated with anti-SLAPP laws (which shows that they work) and the landmark defamation case, New York Times v. Sullivan.

When people say that Trump can't do anything about defamation law at the federal level, I think they miss the point that there is a lot of support for a federal anti-SLAPP law. I think we need one, and in fact, HR 2304 was one such proposal this last session. If it passes, we could expect President Trump to veto it.

Beyond new federal legislation, defamation law is a matter of state law, leaving little for a president to do about it. To win a defamation case, the plaintiff must show publication of a false statement of fact that damages the plaintiff's reputation. This standard can vary a bit from state to state, but it generally fits that general set of requirements.

Therefore, what could Trump do to "open up" the libel laws? He personally? Nothing legally, but if elected, he could pick Supreme Court justices willing to revisit New York Times v. Sullivan, which is in my view the most important case protecting our First Amendment rights. It is the greatest protection we have from government officials or powerful businesses choking the life out of public debate and a free press. Overturning it would change everything we know about freedom of the press.

In a defamation case involving an ordinary citizen suing for defamation, the citizen only needs to show that the defendant knew the statement was false, or failed to exercise "reasonable care" before publishing it. So let's say that a blogger writes an article about a private citizen accusing that person of a crime, based on a false statement by a witness, without following up. That might be a failure to exercise reasonable care, and the blogger might lose the case.

But if the same blogger wrote one about a public figure, like Trump, then Trump has to prove that the blogger did so with "actual malice."

Even some judges and lawyers get this wrong, so don't feel bad if you didn't know what "actual malice" means. It has nothing to do with "malice" at all. It means that the defendant published the statement knowing it was false or with a reckless disregard for the truth.

So if we return to my example, let's say someone wrote a blog post about Donald Trump, accusing him of a crime, but based it just on an anonymous email, without following up -- that might be considered to be "reckless disregard."

Why the different standard depending on the plaintiff?

From New York Times v. Sullivan: "(W)e 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."

"Debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open..." --Justice William Brennan

How beautiful that language is. It encapsulates what America is all about, the way only Justice William Brennan could.

The court recognized that public figures have access to the media to defend themselves, and it went on to reject any notion that the speaker must prove truth; instead the plaintiff must prove falsity. This is all because the First Amendment needs "breathing space" in order for free speech to survive. And if we impose liability for merely erroneous reports on political conduct, it would reflect the "obsolete doctrine that the governed must not criticize their governors."

So what if Trump appoints one or two Supreme Court judges who are willing to overturn Sullivan? Justice Elena Kagan has already voiced skepticism about the extension of Sullivan too far into other kinds of libel cases. The only member of the court I think we could count on to be strongly opposed to overturning it is Chief Justice John Roberts.

No matter how flawed it is, our democracy depends upon robust free speech and free press rights. New York Times v. Sullivan matters more than anything else. If we lose the right to criticize the government in wide-open and robust debate, we lose an important part of what it means to be free.
 

Larry Morgan

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
1,763
Reaction score
93
Location
ATX
Marc Randazza is the real deal in the First Amendment world.
Trump has a history of filing SLAPP suits. SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. This describes a lawsuit filed against someone for exercising his or her First Amendment rights -- filed with little chance of success, but with the knowledge that the lawsuit itself is the punishment.

Let me just premise this with clarifying that I don't support Trump. But I also find it interesting that the media can wield the first amendment as a weapon too. They can completely destroy a person's reputation and credibility with no actual evidence of anything, simply by showing the person's association or accusations. "They" aren't actually doing anything, it's the reaction of the people that is actually doing it. But it's still a little scary to think about sometimes. Someone accuses you of something, media frenzy catches hold, and before you can even go to trial, you will already be treated like you are guilty by society. It's almost a guarantee these days.
 
Joined
Oct 6, 2010
Messages
3,957
Reaction score
786
Location
Coweta, OK
I kinda think you have to be somewhat of a megalomaniac to be any kind of a politician today...particularly president. I'm not sure about this entire president thing right now. For the last four or five new president elections it's been a continual battle to decide between the "best of the worst" it seems. This election has take the best of the worst issue to a new level. Both of the democrats appear pathetic. But Clinton? Really!!!!!!!!!??????? Folks, I just don't get it with her. What's the attraction? The chance she'll leave something on some male interns pant leg? Not that I back Trump but looking at Rubio and Cruze; wow, what a couple of cry babies. Trump just messes with them and those to clowns sink all three barbs of the treble hook every time Trump fishes BS at them. Backing Trump would definitely add a non-politician into the white house. Would it be a good or bad thing? Don't know right now.
 
Joined
Jan 12, 2007
Messages
30,031
Reaction score
17,643
Location
Collinsville
The media has the ability to prevent further attacks of this type. They can clean up their act and take responsibility for the content they publish.

LOL, just kidding! Merely thinking they'd take their responsibility as journalists seriously is a hoot!
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom