Trump looking into changing libel laws

How to use Libel Laws to turn a democracy into to dictatorship.
https://inforrm.wordpress.com/2015/...f-silencing-political-opposition-tessa-evans/

Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore silenced all opposition with this device. First of all they were bankrupted. If they kept on going they wound up in jail because they could not pay their debts.

A powerful weapon in Lee’s arsenal was his use of defamation actions, which were utilised in the silencing of political opponents and unfavorable media coverage from the 1970s onwards. In pursuing high profile legal challenges, the governing People’s Action Party (PAP) were able to impose tight limitations on internal and external criticism.

The risks involved in criticising Lee and other leading Singapore politicians were well known to the international media. A long list of foreign titles have lost actions in Singapore’s courts, including Time, the International Herald Tribune, the Financial Times, the Asian Wall Street Journal, Asiaweek and the Far Eastern Economic Review

In 2002 Bloomberg joined that list, reaching a S$550,000 settlement for a defamation action with Lee Kuan Yew (Senior Minister at the time), Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong and Lee’s eldest son, Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong after an article, which was not printed in Singapore, implied nepotism within the party. The case did not reach the court and was settled within three weeks.

Lee also initiated frequent legal challenges against his opponents, most notably Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam, who became the first opposition member of parliament in over fifteen years when he won a by-election in 1981. Jeyaretnam was embroiled in a series of damaging legal battles with Lee, which eventually forced him to declare bankruptcy.

The first of these was in 1976, when Jeyaretnam was successfully sued by the Prime Minister for remarks made in a political speech. Lee was awarded S$130,000 in damages for the remarks, which he claimed implied that he had procured preferential treatment for his family and therefore abused his office.

Lee successfully sued Jeyretnam again in 1988, who was ordered to pay him damages of S$260,000. An appeal against this decision was dismissed by the Singapore Court of Appeal ([1992] 2 SLR 310).
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
If Trump wants to emulate oppressive regimes, I'd prefer Singapore over Russia, Turkey or North Korea.
 
Darat said:
This is a thread about Trump's reforms. Perhaps start a new thread if you want to talk about other people's reforms?
Click to expand...

Let's not fall into the trap of calling Trump's proposal a "reform," as if there's a problem that needs to be solved and this is the solution. A neutral word might be "change" or "revision"; a more truthful word might be "evisceration."
 
What's that? Revising the libel laws to keep Trump's feelings from being hurt violates the Constitution? We have a plan for that.

A number of press reports have picked up this exchange this morning between ABC’s Jonathan Karl and White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus. But people have missed the real significance. Priebus doesn’t discuss changing ‘press laws’ or ‘libel laws’. He specifically says that the White House has considered and continues to consider amending or even abolishing the 1st Amendment because of critical press coverage of President Trump.


KARL: I want to ask you about two things the President has said on related issues. First of all, there was what he said about opening up the libel laws. Tweeting “the failing New York Times has disgraced the media world. Gotten me wrong for two solid years. Change the libel laws?” That would require, as I understand it, a constitutional amendment. Is he really going to pursue that? Is that something he wants to pursue?

PRIEBUS: I think it’s something that we’ve looked at. How that gets executed or whether that goes anywhere is a different story. But when you have articles out there that have no basis or fact and we’re sitting here on 24/7 cable companies writing stories about constant contacts with Russia and all these other matters—
Click to expand...


Good luck with that.
 
So is he going to be opening himself up to lawsuits for his lies about Obama wiretapping him? Seems like a perfect case for slander.
 
ponderingturtle said:
So is he going to be opening himself up to lawsuits for his lies about Obama wiretapping him? Seems like a perfect case for slander.
Click to expand...

Perhaps he's thinking that there there should also be some kind of "executive privilege" to protect The President from accusations of libel relating to statements made as President.

Then again perhaps he thinks that as the statements are completely true - no libel cases can be brought.
 
The Don said:
Perhaps he's thinking that there there should also be some kind of "executive privilege" to protect The President from accusations of libel relating to statements made as President.

Then again perhaps he thinks that as the statements are completely true - no libel cases can be brought.
Click to expand...

Yep he is crazy only a crazy person would believe anything he says. That is why republicans chose him as president, you never know what he is going to say or do. That is exactly who needs to have unchecked control of nuclear weapons.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Yep he is crazy only a crazy person would believe anything he says. That is why republicans chose him as president, you never know what he is going to say or do. That is exactly who needs to have unchecked control of nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...

Luckily it isn't quite unchecked. The football doesn't have a button that launches the US's nukes in it, rather it has a set of launch options that determine specific strikes scenarios and a code allows him to identify himself and authorise one or more of those strikes. Once he has done so then the orders go to Secretary of Defence to be verified before being sent on to the commanders of the aircraft, missile silos, and submarines that have carry out the command, and it is up to them to determine if it is a lawful order that they are willing to follow. On top of that each launch site has two people that have to be in agreement that the code and order is correct, and that the order is lawful before they proceed to launch. Now the issue is that it is up to them to make the judgement call of whether it is a lawful order and that the President ordering it is sane, since there is no specific safeguard to prevent an insane President ordering a strike or prevent it being relayed to those that would carry it out.

That means that basically we're relying on the Aide that the President would discuss strategic strikes with and the Commanders themselves to act in a way to minimise the damage if an insane President ever authorised a launch.
 
I don't remember where, but early on I said something to the effect of "Trump is in for a shock once he learns that the First Amendment was meant to protect people's speech, now from him."
 
PhantomWolf said:
Luckily it isn't quite unchecked. The football doesn't have a button that launches the US's nukes in it, rather it has a set of launch options that determine specific strikes scenarios and a code allows him to identify himself and authorise one or more of those strikes. Once he has done so then the orders go to Secretary of Defence to be verified before being sent on to the commanders of the aircraft, missile silos, and submarines that have carry out the command, and it is up to them to determine if it is a lawful order that they are willing to follow. On top of that each launch site has two people that have to be in agreement that the code and order is correct, and that the order is lawful before they proceed to launch. Now the issue is that it is up to them to make the judgement call of whether it is a lawful order and that the President ordering it is sane, since there is no specific safeguard to prevent an insane President ordering a strike or prevent it being relayed to those that would carry it out.

That means that basically we're relying on the Aide that the President would discuss strategic strikes with and the Commanders themselves to act in a way to minimise the damage if an insane President ever authorised a launch.
Click to expand...

No it really is just up to him, former secretaries of defense say that they can not legally stop them and it is a legal order.

See http://www.radiolab.org/story/nukes/

There are talk of laws making a nuclear first strike require someone else's agreement under proposal but current law is that it is up to the president solely.

So Secretary of Defense William Perry does not agree with you. They can try to talk the president out of it but at the end of the day he has sole discretion on the use of nuclear weapons including first strikes.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Yep he is crazy only a crazy person would believe anything he says. That is why republicans chose him as president, you never know what he is going to say or do. That is exactly who needs to have unchecked control of nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...

I was thinking something more along the lines of Parliamentary Privilege.

Parliamentary privilege is a legal immunity enjoyed by members of certain legislatures, in which legislators are granted protection against civil or criminal liability for actions done or statements made in the course of their legislative duties.
Click to expand...

Perhaps Trump was thinking something along these lines and as the President is always "on duty" so to speak then everything he says could be protected.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_privilege
 
The Don said:
I was thinking something more along the lines of Parliamentary Privilege.
Click to expand...

I was pointing out that his supporters see his constantly saying contradictory things as an advantage. They want him to cause so much chaos it destroys the government so that a better one can be built.
 
Trump to English translation... Waaaa the meanies said bad things about me. And this is the rank infantility that becomes part of the national dialog.

Carry on, I'm still adjusting to our new bizarro reality.
 
PhantomWolf said:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Should have known he was lying...
Click to expand...

Well, technically it is to the best of his extremely limited ability (mental capacity, ability to reason, lack of rationality.......)
 
Armitage72 said:
What's that? Revising the libel laws to keep Trump's feelings from being hurt violates the Constitution? We have a plan for that.




Good luck with that.
Click to expand...

Holy cow! I'd REALLY like to be able to call Poe's Law on that. But I can't. When you Google "Priebus", the very first thing that is offered is "Priebus First Amendment". And he's supposed to be the grownup in the room.
 
Whether it's ditching the WHCD, walking away from a (semi) tough interview question, or crabbing about libel laws (and looking into amending the 1st), there is no act of cowardice too chicken **** for this demagogue.

The Wambulance is always parked out back, ready to whisk him away to Snowflake-land and a rally of nitwits to bolster his eggshell ego.
 
Resume said:
Whether it's ditching the WHCD, walking away from a (semi) tough interview question, or crabbing about libel laws (and looking into amending the 1st), there is no act of cowardice too chicken **** for this demagogue.
Click to expand...

GOP supporters see this as being strong, failing to bend to the will of the White House correspondents and instead holding his own rally, taking decisive action to suppress fake news by tightening libel laws and putting a pushy reporter firmly in his place.

Resume said:
The Wambulance is always parked out back, ready to whisk him away to Snowflake-land and a rally of nitwits to bolster his eggshell ego.
Click to expand...

He won't need one.

The GOP will continue to back him to the hilt and pander to his whims. They may even attempt to enact legislation to change the libel laws, safe in the knowledge that they will be defeated and that the majority voting against it will be Democratic Party representatives and so Trump can blame the Democrats for foiling him again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom