• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: The Trump Presidency IX: Nein, Nein!

Status
Not open for further replies.
BobTheCoward said:
He is saying the person is committing libel and saying laws need reform. Libel wouldn't be protected speech in that case.
Click to expand...

Unless the person did not commit libel, even assuming it was reformed in some drastic way. Then it's back to a free speech issue, right? Or does it just consume itself with it's own stupidity and become nothingness, to take a philosophical bent.
 
BobTheCoward said:
He is saying the person is committing libel and saying laws need reform. Libel wouldn't be protected speech in that case.
Click to expand...


"Libel" by definition is not protected speech. It is a civil tort, not a crime, and it has precise elements that need to be proven in court to win damages. People can be sued for libel, but not arrested. And it pursued under state laws. It sounds like Trump would like to make protesting the government or demeaning officials (or at least one official) a federal crime.
 
Last edited:
Imhotep said:
Unless the person did not commit libel, even assuming it was reformed in some drastic way. Then it's back to a free speech issue, right? Or does it just consume itself with it's own stupidity and become nothingness, to take a philosophical bent.
Click to expand...

I think his contention is it was very undrastic libel. I'm not sure what modification he thinks needs changing. He is accusing Woodward of standard libel right now.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I think his contention is it was very undrastic libel. I'm not sure what modification he thinks needs changing. He is accusing Woodward of standard libel right now.
Click to expand...

In that case those that think they have been libelled can pursue him through the courts.

What's the problem?
 
BobTheCoward said:
He is saying the person is committing libel and saying laws need reform. Libel wouldn't be protected speech in that case.
Click to expand...
Libel is already excluded from First amendment protection so its really hard to say what exactly he thinks he needs to do.

Sounds like he wants a law that says "you can't say bad things about the president even if they are true".
 
Bob001 said:
"Libel" by definition is not protected speech. It is a civil tort, not a crime, and it has precise elements that need to be proven in court to win damages. People can be sued for libel, but not arrested. And it pursued under state laws. It sounds like Trump would like to make protesting the government or demeaning officials (or at least one official) a federal crime.
Click to expand...

It sounds like he wants to make purposely writing fiction and saying it happened should be a crime.
 
Segnosaur said:
Libel is already excluded from First amendment protection so its really hard to say what exactly he thinks he needs to do.

Sounds like he wants a law that says "you can't say bad things about the president even if they are true".
Click to expand...

He is saying they are false statements.
 
BobTheCoward said:
He is saying they are false statements.
Click to expand...
And if its true he could sue in civil court. The fact that he is not suing suggests that he recognizes that the one who is uttering false statements is Trump (and his minions), so he just wants protection from people saying bad things about him (even if true).
 
Segnosaur said:
And if its true he could sue in civil court. The fact that he is not suing suggests that he recognizes that the one who is uttering false statements is Trump (and his minions), so he just wants protection from people saying bad things about him (even if true).
Click to expand...

I couldn't tell you. We address the argument and not the arguer here
 
Mattis and Kelly are denying they said anything like the statements reported in the book.

They would be the ones to go to court.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Trump Tweets

"Isn’t it a shame that someone can write an article or book, totally make up stories and form a picture of a person that is literally the exact opposite of the fact, and get away with it without retribution or cost. Don’t know why Washington politicians don’t change libel laws?"
Click to expand...

Incredible coming from somebody that libels and slanders constantly: Bitherism, the Central Park 5 (he's never backtracked on that) and so on.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Nearly any kind of "controversy" no matter how manufactured is going to cause a slight stock wiggle just because controversy always makes investors nervous. 3% isn't really worth worrying about and as you say I doubt it will stay that way for long.
Click to expand...
Trump is just mad because in 100 years he'll be the answer to the trivia question "Who is considered the worst POTUS?" - a question asked and answered by people wearing Nikes.
 
portlandatheist said:
Incredible coming from somebody that libels and slanders constantly: Bitherism, the Central Park 5 (he's never backtracked on that) and so on.
Click to expand...

Blatent attack on free speech
If such a law is passed, the time for peaceful protest has ended;the time for armed resistence has come. The last legal barrier agfainst tyranny would have gone down.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom