• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Trump's chief of staff: 'We've looked at' changing libel laws

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tovarisc

Member
A top White House aide says changing libel laws is "something we've looked at" -- echoing some of President Trump's strongest anti-media rhetoric.

----

Reince Priebus, the president's chief of staff, said during an interview on ABC's "This Week" on Sunday that the White House has discussed potential changes to laws that are intended to safeguard free speech.

"How it gets executed or whether that goes anywhere is a different story," Priebus said. But he added that he thinks "newspapers and news agencies need to be more responsible with how they report the news."

Changing the laws wouldn't be easy. Libel laws vary by state, and there's no federal libel law. And weakening press freedoms would likely take a constitutional amendment.

Trump and his administration have made attacks on the media a recurring part of his platform. Changing libel laws was even part of Trump's campaign trail rhetoric.

In February 2016, Trump said if he won the presidency he would "open up our libel laws so when (media) write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money."

Trump has frequently revisited the issue while attacking one of his favorite media targets -- The New York Times.

....

CNN contributor Carl Bernstein, who broke the Watergate case as a reporter for the Washington Post, said Sunday on "Reliable" that Trump's recent tone toward the press has been "venomous."

Trump decried the mainstream media during a rally Saturday in Pennsylvania that he held to tout the accomplishments of his first 100 days in office.

"We have a president who doesn't understand the Constitution, who is ignorant of (the media's) history," Bernstein said. "He deserves our respect as the duly elected president of the United States. That does not mean he does not deserve to be called out when he lies."


Source: http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/30/media/reince-priebus-libel-laws/
 

Zolo

Member
Changing the laws wouldn't be easy. Libel laws vary by state, and there's no federal libel law. And weakening press freedoms would likely take a constitutional amendment.
Sounds like another quote based on what they'd like to do rather than what they actually can.
In February 2016, Trump said if he won the presidency he would "open up our libel laws so when (media) write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money."
And they'd lose in court as well.
 

Dynomutt

Member
Moving forward it should be implemented that a required qualification exam to even become a candidate is needed.
 
Changing the laws wouldn't be easy. Libel laws vary by state, and there's no federal libel law. And weakening press freedoms would likely take a constitutional amendment.

Good fucking luck then, you bunglers.
 

Gutek

Member
Obama should just fucking sue the fucker over those false surveillance claims. Just sue the shit out of this slimy fuck.
 

Sianos

Member
"actually it's about ethics in free speech"

suuuuuure it was

wow turns out the guys who only defend free speech to make the point that "hey guys, maybe we can learn something valuable from these nazis" were only superficially concerned with free speech as a principle
 

Jeffrey

Member
hope they are looking at it as hard as they are with tax reform.

'100 people team' wrote that single sheet double spaced piece of fluff.
 
"We have a president who doesn't understand the Constitution, who is ignorant of (the media's) history," Bernstein said. "He deserves our respect as the duly elected president of the United States. That does not mean he does not deserve to be called out when he lies."

No he goddamn doesn't. You don't respect someone because of a title, you respect someone because of their actions, and Trump's actions have repeatedly shown him to be a man of no character who is unworthy of my respect. I'm not going to give respect to the office without reserve; it's the Presidency, not the crown. Having a President who doesn't understand the Constitution should be a pretty big clue that he doesn't deserve our fucking respect. Fuck this line of thinking.
 
It will only apply when someone says something remotely bad about that sorry sack of shit with the thin as tracing paper skin.

Otherwise, he and his cronies can say anything they want without repercussion.
 
And he would be the first to be charged under those new laws with all of the shit he spews on a daily basis, right?

That's the irony, really, and I guarantee you it's the main reason they'll never truly pursue this, outside the fact that it would be a hard task to do anyway.
 
Once again hilarious seeing Republicans scurry to dissolve more state's rights and bolster Federal power. I miss old Republicans - they were still wrong, but they were internally consistently wrong.
 

Protome

Member
Introducing stricted libel laws in the US wouldn't be the worst idea in the world. More likely Trump's staff stopped looking into it when they realised that changing libel laws in a way that wasn't blatantly evil and corrupt wouldn't stop the press from running any of the stories on Trump that they've been running because they're based in fact.

If anything it'd only harm the press outlets that are more friendly to them.
 

Haly

One day I realized that sadness is just another word for not enough coffee.
Is Cheeto liable to his own proposed laws?

He seems to be under the impression the President is above the law.

It would be funny if libel laws were expanded, the first thing he did was tweet about it while mocking the NYT, and then NYT immediately sues him.
 

theWB27

Member
I think people most affected would be his own cronies. I hope trumps lawyers looked at him and told him...nah you don't really want to do that.
 

TyrantII

Member
Introducing stricted libel laws in the US wouldn't be the worst idea in the world. More likely Trump's staff stopped looking into it when they realised that changing libel laws in a way that wasn't blatantly evil and corrupt wouldn't stop the press from running any of the stories on Trump that they've been running because they're based in fact.

If anything it'd only harm the press outlets that are more friendly to them.

They want to change them so they can bring cases in front of banana courts. Libel laws and purity oaths are only to give a facade of legitimately to authoritarian regimes.
 

TwoDurans

"Never said I wasn't a hypocrite."
Can CNN not sue Trump for slander or libel? He's directly effecting thier bottom line.
 
The frustrating thing is that we do need some libel reform. Anti 'strategic lawsuits against public participation' laws should be the standard in all states, for example. We certainly do not need to make the system easier for rich assholes to have a chilling effect on any opinions they need destroyed.
 

Protome

Member
They want to change them so they can bring cases in front of banana courts. Libel laws and purity oaths are only to give a facade of legitimately to authoritarian regimes.

Libel laws in general serve far more useful purposes than that. But I do agree that that is exactly what Trump was looking into doing. His staffers most likely stopped looking into it when they realised that it would be highly illegal and Trump doesn't have the support to push it.
 
If you look closely, were only 1 away. Ending net neutrality together with strengthened "libel laws" would go a long way towards #6.

ujulrCG.jpg
 

Got

Banned
The frustrating thing is that we do need some libel reform. Anti 'strategic lawsuits against public participation' laws should be the standard in all states, for example. We certainly do not need to make the system easier for rich assholes to have a chilling effect on any opinions they need destroyed.

why do we need libel reform?
 
There is no way they can make an amendment. It also can't pass any courts even with conservative judges. They can't do jack shit and it's wonderful to know that.
 
"We're looking at this" is something that Trump et al say when they're pressed on a previous commitment that Trump made but has no interest following up on.

Trump has also been "looking into" releasing his taxes, suing the women who accused him of sexual assault, launching an investigation into voter fraud in last year's election, etc etc etc.
 

Loxley

Member
Yeah, you "looked at" the laws and quickly found out there's no way in hell you could actually change them.

Good thing there are checks and balances in our government, Constitution and Bill of Rights to prevent would-be fascists like Trump from actually going full-fascist. I have zero doubt that if he could change the libel laws, he would. In fact that'd probably have been the very first thing he did after he was sworn in "You can't say anything mean about the President!".
 

Zolo

Member
In fact that'd probably have been the very first thing he did after he was sworn in "You can't say anything mean about the President!".

Right along with: "the powers of the president to protect our country are very substantial and will not be questioned."
 

Cat Party

Member
"We're looking at this" is something that Trump et al say when they're pressed on a previous commitment that Trump made but has no interest following up on.

Trump has also been "looking into" releasing his taxes, suing the women who accused him of sexual assault, launching an investigation into voter fraud in last year's election, etc etc etc.

Pretty much.
 

L Thammy

Member
Speech isn't free enough until you can use it to abuse those more vulnerable than you.

Or, I guess it's too free? Basically whatever law would benefit me right now is the good one.
 

Savitar

Member
At first was thinking how they would want to try and sue people for repeating the truth about what they say even if they claim otherwise. But in the end considering the BS the right and especially extreme right tend to say absolutely crazy batshit things wouldn't it backfire on them horribly.

Would be a good laugh if they passed it only to end up having to finally shut up due to their own words biting them every other day.
 

ElRenoRaven

Member
I say let the fuckers try. You think the courts held up the travel ban quick. This would be in court and blocked before the ink even hit the fucking paper.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom