Trump looking into changing libel laws

[Resume]

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.



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.

When will the GOP find it cost-ineffective to be hoovered to Trump's trouser-snake? When they become as unpopular as Trump himself, who is even less popular than that weakling Obama's attempt to give U.S. citizens a glimpse of first-world UHC?

 

[Minoosh]

Yes, exactly. Support your local high school debate team. It's one of the few places where young teenagers learn to exercise their critical thinking skills.

I'd love to have them write essays that must include 3 common fallacies, then have them switch papers to make sure they accomplished it.

Assignments for persuasive essays, usually in the 5-paragraph format, are often tied to literature reading in class. But that's not necessarily the most productive approach, because if they are not engaged in the literature they won't be able to cite 3 separate reasons supporting their thesis statement.

Get them to write about something that matters to them. They are naturally critical thinkers, but they have to learn that stating one reason 3 different ways is not the same thing as giving 3 reasons to support their point of view.

It could work pretty well in middle school as well.

 

[The Don]

When will the GOP find it cost-ineffective to be hoovered to Trump's trouser-snake?

Likely never

When they become as unpopular as Trump himself, who is even less popular than that weakling Obama's attempt to give U.S. citizens a glimpse of first-world UHC?

45% will turn out and vote Republican anyway. House districts are gerrymandered so the only threat is from the primaries and no-one lost one of those for the GOP by being too right wing.

 

[quadraginta]

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.

<snip>

He's put "exception" back doors in all of his "swamp draining" efforts so far. At his discretion, of course.

And has shown no hesitation in using them.

No reason to expect this would be any different in his mind*.

(*:Using the term very loosely.)

 

[quadraginta]

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.

By comparison, he is.

But that's a pretty low bar.

 

[Beerina]

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.

That's all politics in a nut shell. I've seen bills sponsored by people who voted against it in a panic that it almost became law. They wanted the brownie points for creating the bill, secure in the knowledge it wouldn't become law, or so they thought.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I'm glad it is nigh-impossible to Amend the Constitution to get rid of the First Amendment.

 

[The Don]

I'm glad it is nigh-impossible to Amend the Constitution to get rid of the First Amendment.

Doesn't need to be repealed, merely modified to suit Trump's aims.

Heck a SCOTUS ruling effectively rewrote the second amendment to turn it into a personal right to bear arms for gits and shiggles.

 

[PhantomWolf]

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.

You'll notice that I didn't say that the SoD could over-rule it, just that they had to verify it. It's the Commanders on the ground and in the air that have the final say as to if they will launch.

 

[Tony Stark]

Doesn't need to be repealed, merely modified to suit Trump's aims.

Heck a SCOTUS ruling effectively rewrote the second amendment to turn it into a personal right to bear arms for gits and shiggles.

Not going to happen.

 

[SezMe]

That's all politics in a nut shell. I've seen bills sponsored by people who voted against it in a panic that it almost became law. They wanted the brownie points for creating the bill, secure in the knowledge it wouldn't become law, or so they thought.

That's a reasonable description on how we got Prohibition.

 

[The Don]

Not going to happen.

Why not ?

The Patriot Act drove a carriage and four through a range of constitutional rights with nary a peep.

Changing libel laws (with a handy "parliamentary privilege" exemption for lawmakers) may not even require a constitutional amendment, merely a SCOTUS ruling to show that the libel laws are indeed compatible with the existing first amendment.

 

[Tony Stark]

Why not ?

The Patriot Act drove a carriage and four through a range of constitutional rights with nary a peep.

Changing libel laws (with a handy "parliamentary privilege" exemption for lawmakers) may not even require a constitutional amendment, merely a SCOTUS ruling to show that the libel laws are indeed compatible with the existing first amendment.

Let's see.

First, there aren't federal libel laws. There is exactly 0% chance that Congress is going to add one just because Donald Trump's feelings get hurt when the media tells the truth about him, much less one that would allow him to successfully sue them. Even if Republicans voted 100% lockstep in favor, they would not have the votes. They don't have 60 votes in the Senate and no way even a single Democrat would vote for it. Not that all Republicans would be in favor anyway. Plenty of them are smart enough to know that such a bill would bite their side in the ass as it would also allow Democrats to go after right wing media. Trump can't even get Congress to fund his stupid wall, but he is going to get them to do this? Come one.

As for the Supreme Court, they have made rulings that make it basically impossible for politicians to successfully sue for libel. While it is theoretically possible for them to overturn this precedent, they would first need a case to do it. Like Congress passing a law and it getting challenged. Which as I already explained, is not going to happen. And even if they did, what reason do they have to change it, because an unpopular president wants them to? Please. These people have lifetime appointments, Trump has no leverage over them.

Seriously, this is not going to happen. I suspect that Trump told his people to look into it. And they did and found there was no way to do it or already knew. But Reince can't well go on TV and say that his boss is a petulant idiot who wants to implement an unconstitutional plan that won't happen.

 

[The Don]

Let's see.

First, there aren't federal libel laws. There is exactly 0% chance that Congress is going to add one just because Donald Trump's feelings get hurt when the media tells the truth about him, much less one that would allow him to successfully sue them. Even if Republicans voted 100% lockstep in favor, they would not have the votes. They don't have 60 votes in the Senate and no way even a single Democrat would vote for it. Not that all Republicans would be in favor anyway. Plenty of them are smart enough to know that such a bill would bite their side in the ass as it would also allow Democrats to go after right wing media. Trump can't even get Congress to fund his stupid wall, but he is going to get them to do this? Come one.

As for the Supreme Court, they have made rulings that make it basically impossible for politicians to successfully sue for libel. While it is theoretically possible for them to overturn this precedent, they would first need a case to do it. Like Congress passing a law and it getting challenged. Which as I already explained, is not going to happen. And even if they did, what reason do they have to change it, because an unpopular president wants them to? Please. These people have lifetime appointments, Trump has no leverage over them.

Seriously, this is not going to happen. I suspect that Trump told his people to look into it. And they did and found there was no way to do it or already knew. But Reince can't well go on TV and say that his boss is a petulant idiot who wants to implement an unconstitutional plan that won't happen.

Excellent points all

 

[ponderingturtle]

You'll notice that I didn't say that the SoD could over-rule it, just that they had to verify it. It's the Commanders on the ground and in the air that have the final say as to if they will launch.

No they don't they only get to show if the order came from a legitimate source namely directly from the president. They don't get to decide that the president is bonkers and drunk and not fire.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

/derail

Getting back to the topic of this thread, I have a serious question: Among statements that are non-libelous under current US law, what kinds would become libelous if the laws were changed as Trump desires?

Let's consider two concrete examples, neither of them libelous under current law.

Let's suppose someone says, in writing, that some public figure, such as former President Barack Obama, is a thin-skinned narcissist. Suppose further that this statement is not accompanied by evidence, and its author not only refuses to offer evidence in support of that statement but also throws a hissy fit when challenged to provide evidence. Does Trump want that kind of thing to become libel?

Consider also a less extreme example. Suppose someone says, in writing, that some public figure such as current President Donald Trump is a thin-skinned narcissist, providing numerous examples in support of that claim and providing still further examples in support when challenged. Does Trump want that kind of thing to become libel as well?

My guess is that Trump wants the second of those examples, but not the first, to be considered libel.

 

[Tony Stark]

Getting back to the topic of this thread, I have a serious question: Among statements that are non-libelous under current US law, what kinds would become libelous if the laws were changed as Trump desires?

Let's consider two concrete examples, neither of them libelous under current law.

Let's suppose someone says, in writing, that some public figure, such as former President Barack Obama, is a thin-skinned narcissist. Suppose further that this statement is not accompanied by evidence, and its author not only refuses to offer evidence in support of that statement but also throws a hissy fit when challenged to provide evidence. Does Trump want that kind of thing to become libel?

Consider also a less extreme example. Suppose someone says, in writing, that some public figure such as current President Donald Trump is a thin-skinned narcissist, providing numerous examples in support of that claim and providing still further examples in support when challenged. Does Trump want that kind of thing to become libel as well?

My guess is that Trump wants the second of those examples, but not the first, to be considered libel.

Trump wants it to be libel for the media to say negative things about him even if they are true. That's all he cares about.

 

[Darat]

Off topic posts dumped to AAH - the topic of this thread is well expressed in its title, keep to that title.

NB: when I started the housekeeping clean-up of this thread I hadn't realised I'd posted in this particular thread, as ever we try not to - outside of housekeeping - moderate threads we are active participants in therefore any further actions regarding the posts moved to AAH will not be actioned by myself.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[kmortis]

Didn't they try that under John Adams? Something called the Sedition Acts. Granted, those were to stop "false statements critical about the federal government", but in this political climate I don't see one party accepting the critique of their opposition as being true or accurate.

 

[phiwum]

Didn't they try that under John Adams? Something called the Sedition Acts. Granted, those were to stop "false statements critical about the federal government", but in this political climate I don't see one party accepting the critique of their opposition as being true or accurate.

We had similar restrictions under Wilson in WWI.