More of what is said about Mr. Trump falls under "Definition" of character" than "Defamation". In 12 short months he has proven himself wrong on just about everything, actually nothing comes to mind where he was correct.
The law is firmly established that a PUBLIC PERSON has virtually no right to claim defamation to suppress free speech. This demonstrates once again his autocratic & fascist instincts to remake the defamation laws in his own image.
1
A brief primer on libel and slander laws, just for you, Mr. Trump, since you seem to have decided not to consult your eminent legal team on this issue. Libel and slander laws are developed and enforced under "common law": cases are decided in the first instance by state courts based on their interpretation of legal precedence in that state. Only upon multiple appeals, as permitted by the successively higher courts, do such cases reach federal courts, and even then, decisions rendered by a federal court are based entirely on the doctrines of common law and legal precedence, as established by prior federal as well as state case law. Trump has virtually NO power to change libel or slander laws. He once again demonstrates his ignorance and naivete in continuing to beat this drum like the recalcitrant child that he is.
6
It was reported only yesterday that, during the one year as president, 2,000 lies have come out of Mr. Trump’s loose tongue. Some of those lies were parts of his character assassination campaigns against those who exposed his lies and wrongdoings. Some of those who are hurt by his libelous and slanderous remarks have already initiated legal actions against him. When they heard that he wants to strengthen the existing libel laws, they could as well be saying, “Thank you, Mr. Trump.”
We all know that the immediate provocation for his latest outburst against the country's libel laws is the publication of the new book “Fire and Fury," by Michael Wolff. What is the outcome of the cease-and-desist letter that his lawyer sent to the publisher? They released the book earlier than originally scheduled and increased its first print run from 150,000 to one million. At no bookstore in New York, I could find a copy of the book.
Two more defamation suits that Trump lawyers filed are pending in court: one against Buzzfeed News, which published the “salacious” intelligence dossier alleging the Trump campaign’s collusion with Russia; and the other against Fusion GPS, the research firm that prepared the dossier. People can't wait for the hearings on them. If networks are allowed to broadcast the hearings, they will be among the largest-watched television shows.
Is Mr. Trump so stupid that he can't foresee these outcomes; that his attempt to revamp the libel laws would boomerang on him?
3
If the USA had strong Libel Laws we would not be having this conversation. Trump would not be President. He lies 5 times a day. His lies that Obama was not born in the USA , claiming Obama was the founder of ISIS etC.. WE would not have TV and Radio stations that make millions putting out misinformation. We would have-never heard names like , Limbaugh, Roger Ailes, Hannity, O’REILLY, FOX SO CALLED NEWS, and manny more unamerican TV and Radio Hosts that belong in a Banana RepublicK. This is the What happened years ago in countries like Argentina Germany and many others that failed, Right vs Left, Love the Military etc..
Imagine Trump’s supporters waking up every day and listening to Obama complain about Bush, the CIA ,FBI, our Judicial system etc....if Barack Obama’s said in 2009 about our institutions he would be called a communists .
If Hillary was being investigated by Muller instead of Trump would his supporters in congress and the people who voted for him feel the same? Honest people would.
.
3
Aside from the absurdity of the Defamer-in-Chief complaining about how hard it is win libel suits, the standard that makes it hard to win suits involving public figure plaintiffs like Trump came from a Supreme Court balancing of First Amendment rights vs libel law protections. For that reason, I very much doubt Congress could alter that standard.
2
Isn't strengthening the Libel Laws just another ploy to increase Government's power to censor the press? Has anyone said it better than Justice Hugo Black? "In the First Amendment the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government."
11
Once again DJT demonstrates that the only part of the Bill of Rights he knows is the NRA's definition of the Second Amendment. The First and the other eight are just nasty impediments to his rule.
3
"Can’t say things that are false, knowingly false,"
I'm stunned that this guy still finds support among a third of the electorate. He utters at least four or five falsehoods a day. Plus, looking at something "strongly," means what? Maybe it's a euphemism for bigly.
2
eww! He'll take a strong look at libel laws. Well. let him do that. He may end up the first victim of his own vicious making.
3
By 1922 Cyril Brown & others were promoting Hitler's rise. They quelled public fear by claiming Hitler didn't really hate minorities. It was only jargon to motivate his base. Sound familiar? Is comparing Trump to Hitler absurd? Judge 4 yourself. 1939 was 2 Late!
Read cyril Brown's 1922 New York Times article -see Deb Chapman as Vivacity
@vivacityrules
1
The hypocrisy drips so freely from Trump's mouth he should wear a bib.
6
Do libel laws protect the president from prosecution? Mr Trump has publicly lied more times than all other 21st century presidents combined (probably 20th Century as well). He may be re-raising issues that will splatter him with even more mud than he has already covered himself with. Beware about libel Mr President, you are walking on thin ice here.
2
Trump has slandered or libeled President Obama by asserting that Obama is a founder of ISIS.
Trump has slandered or libeled HRC by asserting that she is a founder of ISIS.
Trump has slandered or libeled Sen. Ted Cruz's father by asserting that he was involved in the assassination of President Kennedy.
Those were all statements that are provably false, and that were stated recklessly and with malicious intent.
Trump should get sued for slander/libel multiple times. That might give him a clue about how the law works.
3
The "law" Trump seeks is one that allows him to say anything that crosses his mind about anything or anyone, use the Justice Department to punish his "enemies", but at the same time criminalizes any criticism of Trump. How would that law read?
1
The legal basis for a lawsuit has to be something profound unless courts considered it meaningless. Some libertarians opposed to defamatory statements or news organization criticize Republicans for credibility.
Let me get this straight. As President, I can say anything I want, tell lies as rapidly as I breathe, constantly accuse a certain former candidate and long time public servant "crooked" and "lying", make up stories to match my current perspective and expect to have it accepted as the unvarnished truth. On the other hand, any one, individual or new organization that takes the time to investigate facts is lying simply because the facts don't line up with my view of "reality" and will be taken to my revised version of the judicial system so I can intimidate them into silence.
Yet another view into the mind of an emotionally handicapped individual who still believes he's running a game show where he's the boss and dare not be questioned.
6
Trump seems to forget who is most often exhibiting a reckless disregard for the truth, these days. It’s Trump and those sources he’s been repeating which disparage all kinds of people without bothering to confirm as well as most major publications. I guess Trump figures on hiding behind his money, again.
2
To win the Republican nomination and the Presidency, Trump conducted a campaign grounded in slander of his opponents. When confronted by women accusing him of sexual harassment and assault, he slandered their character- and is actually being sued by one accuser for slander. He slandered the Judge presiding over the Trump (p)U fraud case, and AG Schneiderman for investigating it.
Of course, any criticism of his absurd unpresidential behavior is a threat to his fragile ego and thus slander. Ok, maybe we laymen we should not diagnose Trump from afar. But you need no medical degree to see behavior that apparently Trump is wholly unaware of: he projects his evil acts onto others . The pattern of his (un)presidential behavior reveals his paranoid view of life: every person, every day presents a threat to his well being.
It is as if he has achieved high office so as to protect himself from perceived threats. He revises or interprets the tax laws, conflict of interest rules , business regulations and even criminal laws to deal with his fears and insecurities. FISA has to be reauthorized and his worry is that HE was wire tapped or "unmasked" illegally .
I am no shrink, but I still trust my lying eyes over Trump's world view.
4
And, while you're at it, take a strong look at the first amendment.
1
Trump wants to do away with any law or constitutional provision that he refuses to comply with, or any medical diagnosis that he disagrees with. Have we ever seen, outside of the depiction of deranged megalomaniacs in the movies, a human being with such depraved indifference to the well-being of others.
3
I guess the emperor will be first in line to be sued.
3
Funny, Trump would have many Lawsuits. He lies daily. He always seem to put the blame on others in advance. Example, LYING HILLARY. There must be a serious lawsuit on to way to him from Overseas. He just want to be able to play his old game. He loves to threaten people with lawsuits that seldom make it to court.
6
Lol. Mr. Trump better take a long, in-depth gaze into the abyss of truth as an absolute defense to libel. This just more bluster and a telegraphing of Trump's intent to commence "slap suits" as a form of deterrence with respect to p1st amendment protected politicsl speech; one amounting to prior restraint. Right out of the Putin and Alfonse Simms playbook.
1
Please make it retroactive!!
2
---Lost on virtually...no one, the hypocrisy of a president who can rarely speak words of truth calling for tougher libel laws. What an incredibly...unfunny joke.
4
Hey Pres. Trump; be careful of what you wish for.
You've libelled and slandered your way to the Presidency and then continued personal defamations, accusations, threats and made criminal accusations; against anyone and everyone that might not agree with you or support you 110%.
2
And the first lawsuit should be against Trumo for all the Birther Lies.
3
But claiming Mr. Obama was born in Kenya was perfectly OK...
3
President Trump and his legal team is our present day Confederacy of Dunces.
3
Libel is something that generally means ascribing that is not true to a person or entity. In DJT's case, he might want to be more careful about what he wishes for since he has told over 2000 lies since he has been the headliner in media. And I don't think our national treasury can afford to defend him in all the counter-suits that may arise out of his opening a Pandora''s box which includes attacks on the media. Apparently, he has never heard the old adage about letting sleeping dogs lie...or like pretty much everything else, it flew into one ear and out the other.
4
Trump's familiar enough with laws about libel and slander. He slanders Hillary Clinton every day, knowing that she's a public figure and, as such, deals with a much higher bar for libel and slander. So Trump can say whatever he wants about public figures. But he cannot slander private citizens, like the Gold Star family that rejected him.
This farce, finally, has reached absurdity. Trump needs the full force of the law dropped on his brainless head, and to pay for his crimes against our nation. The congressional Republicans that aided and abetted Trump's fraudulent election should also be charged with conspiring against the US.
And fine Trump a million bucks every time he uses Hillary Clinton's name in an attempt to change the subject.
13
Lots of wishful thinking there. It’s critical for folks to understand that Trump is solely accountable to republicans in Congress as to any repercussions for his crimes. And they are completely under his thumb by now. Don’t be under any illusions that there is some other check on his power, because there is not.
3
He is going to take a "strong look" is an apt description of what he will do. He won't read about it, ask about it, study it or analyze it. He will merely look at it which is probably all his brain can muster.
9
Huh? Why are folks still confused about his despotic urges? He’s not dumb, but rather making all the inroads to punish his political enemies. This is stark and very dangerous. He’s more than happy folks think he’s not up to the challenge, but you must understand he and his minions are systematically undermining the nation.
3
If "take a strong look at" means to read and understand, I don't think anyone is terribly concerned. DJT has not read and understood anything above a fourth grade reading level in decades.
8
As the article points out, defamation laws are state laws plus one Supreme Court case. This is hot air. Of course, that’s just a day ending in y in this administration.
8
From the article, Trump says: “Can’t say things that are false, knowingly false, and be able to smile as money pours into your bank account."
Isn't that a description of how many Trump Family businesses work?
11
The US needs laws against false, misleading and deceptive behavior by politicians.
6
Watch the sycophants in Congress start developing a federal libel law that makes it a crime to criticize the President, anyone in the administration, and the President's family - which, of course, Trump will sign into law. Then, following the inevitable lawsuits, watch Gorsuch et al. declare the law an acceptable limitation of First Amendment rights, due to some legal "principle" made up of whole cloth. At that point, America's descent into the pantheon of banana republics will be complete, and the GOP will dance on her grave.
3
“We want fairness,” the president said. “Can’t say things that are false, knowingly false, and be able to smile as money pours into your bank account. We are going to take a very, very strong look at that, and I think what the American people want to see is fairness.”
Seriously? He says things that are false every single day. Multiple times a day, while watching tax dollars roll into his bank account. And if anyone should be worried about libel laws, it is Trump. How many times a day does he attack people with lies and defame anyone he happens to be mad at that minute? He has already been sued multiple times. What Americans want to see is fairness, but I guess most of us have a different idea of what that means.
4
He should take a strong look at the separation of powers.
5
As usual he speaks before he knows. There are no US libel laws. Such are the domain of each state. Which vary widely.
2
Just what we need in the US...more frivolous lawsuits.
2
That is what Trump spent his career doing. Suing people and threatening to sue even if he owed you money.
1
Another self-serving, anti-democratic move by all that annoy or undermine Trumps bloated ego. And if he were to succeed, does that mean Obama can bring libel suit against Trump for all the blatant lies he's told about birthisms and the other long line of people who can stand up to sue him.
3
Could Trump act more guilty? Obama laughed off conspiracy theories and personal attacks, and he certainly didn’t draw attention to them. Know why? Because he was a stable genius. The best kind: a humble one.
8
When Trump says, “Can’t say things that are false, knowingly false, and be able to smile as money pours into your bank account." one wonders if he is speaking about himself. How ironic . . .
And, interesting take on things by the author of this article. He says, " . . . a salacious and mostly unsubstantiated intelligence dossier that purported to describe how Russia had aided the Trump campaign." I'm not sure how he can say mostly "unsubstantiated" when much has been confirmed, and nothing has been proven wrong. By "salacious" I guess he is referring to Trump's liaison with Russian hookers in Moscow. While not yet proven either way, who can seriously doubt that a man reputed to have said that one of life's joys was in bedding his friend's wives, and bragged about grabbing women with indiscretion, would turn down "play" time while away from home and the wife. As for "globe spanning conspiracy", finding Erik Prince (much to his dismay) meeting with a Russian in the Seychelles, off the eastern coast of Africa, certainly hints at the globe trotting lengths they willing to go to in order to avoid detection.
Trump's impotence in affecting the nation's libel laws is a good thing for every American, and Michael Wolff is getting the last laugh thanks to the Donald's ludicrous cease-and-desist letter, because sales of the book have done nothing but go up.
2
Good idea. Obama will may be able to sue Trump for the birther lies .
6
Fact check, Trumps Lies first 355 days as president of USA, 2,001 (Two thousand and one)
“Believe me” Imagine an ego like Donnie going to bed every night knowing that he lost the popular vote by 3,000,000 votes and having to admit that Obama was born in The USA.
2
This is what bothers me about Trump’s desire to “open up” our libel laws: for over two years now he has been asserting that the media publishes fiction - that they are making stories up out of whole cloth, with no evidence to support it – and also complaining that we must change our libel laws to make it easier for public figures to sue the news media. But there is really just one reason why it is harder for public figures to sue news orgnaizations for libel in the US: the Supreme Court’s holding in NY Times v. Sullivan that the First Amendment requires that in order to win a libel suit against a news organization, a public figure (like Trump) must show that the organization made a false and defamatory statement with “actual malice” – i.e., it either (a) knew the statement was false or (b) recklessly disregarded its truth or falsity (e.g., it had no idea whether the statement was true or false but went ahead and printed it anyway with no effort to verify it). But Trump has been saying for well over two years now that the media is “fake news” – that they are publishing news they know is false. That conduct clearly constitutes “actual malice” and is not protected by the First Amendment under current libel law. In light of all this, shouldn’t someone ask Trump why he hasn’t already sued CNN, NBC and/or the Failing NY Times since they are, as he claims, reporting information they know to be false? Am I missing something here?
3
Well said. Trump actually commits slander often against people who have been in the news, with impunity, so far. Even if he lost a suit the damages would be trivial to him.
2
wonder who told what libel means? did he know that there are already laws regarding this issue? does he know he's a public figure? oh well let him dig his own grave so that no one else has to, although many would be willing. ciao!
5
He slanders people who have become prominent in the mass media, frequently. If the laws were changed as he describes, he would be greatly exposed to suits against him.
1
So does this mean all the people who the pResident has insulted over the years on Twitter will be able to easily sue the pResident? I sure hope so. He is the worst violator of all.
3
(I'm thinking....) After the Pizza Gate incident, maybe we ought to have stiffer libel laws?
2
I don't remember the dossier being forth as truth???
1
"Can't say things that are false, knowingly false, and amile as money pours into the bank," eh?
Remarkable. My only question is whether the man's a deliberate liar, or actually believes he always tells the truth.
1
Falsehoods and defamation eh? Well Trump will come a cropper since he is a leading proponent of both!
No surprise on the timing of this announcement, nor for yesterday's litigation by the faithful Cohen. Good to see the chaotic orchestra managing at least a simple battle plan, when it is unable to achieve so little elsewhere.....ooh, that big beautiful 2,000 mile wall and a king in his altogether. Tee hee!
3
Allow me to define fairness as Trump sees it: Publish his lies as Gospel, and grovel and fawn over the great leader.
3
Look all you like, won't change a thing.
1
It kills me when he makes a statement like that: "we'll be looking into libel laws." It's like watching a toddler pretending to type, smoke a pipe, and throw around work jargon he's heard his parents use.
2
I would assume that these new "libel" laws would be in force if you did something truly stupid, like asserting against all known evidence that a political opponent was born outside the United States. I would further assume that these new libel laws would prevent someone from insinuating, without a shred of evidence, that a political opponent's father was involved in the assassination of an American president. One positive effect of these new "libel" laws would be that they spell the end of the careers of such people as Sean Hannity, Alex Jones, Steve Bannon and Rush Limbaugh.
4
This is disturbing. Softening libel laws gets us closer to autocratic rule with tyrants able to control information the public receives. If you can't take the heat, Mr. Trump, then get out of the kitchen. And, by the way, you have your hand on the oven dial and you are the one cranking it up to the max. Dial it down and leave our press freedoms alone!
2
So says the Defamer in Chief ..Psychologists study this type of behavior . I am not sure if he suffers from a dissociative disorder or something else. Mr. Trump ,often, talks just to fill the air with his words. There are times when he should just answe yes or no and stop. His blabbering on with with disjointed thoughts is the very basis of why we question whether he understands what he is talking about. His libel is recorded in real time via video.
2
Trump (the stable genius), not a stand-in, needs to be interviewed and asked to name the five protectorates of the first amendment. What a fake he is!
1
Trump can’t touch the Constitution, so no changes there. And he can’t touch state libel laws, so no changes there. Just another blustery day in Washington, full of uneducated swamp things.
3
Easier libel laws? Fill yer boots Mr President. The lineup of those you have defamed and libeled starts with Elizabeth Warren.
2
Honestly, does he think he is the King or something?
4
He thinks he was coronated Emperor Donald the First. They did not tell him that he has no clothes.
1
Trump is a master of smut & slur, of lies & verbal assassination....but now that he's been hoisted on his own petard, been dished in that very same sauce...he doesn't like it. Sad.
3
Taking a look at libel laws would require him to read
3
I never want to hear another adjective, or, dear God, another adverb for the rest of my life.
1
Next thing you know, the White House will have full control over anything in the Press.
Sounds like North Korea to me.
1
It should never be forgotten that Trump was a protege of Roy Cohn. This apple did not fall far from the tree.
4
Our nation's libel laws are a disgrace...so says the liar who kept on keeping alive a provably false claim intended to do harm to the former President and the supposed place of his birth.
2
So a 'tweet' is now a 'letter'.
In terms of its comedic value, this WH just keeps on giving.
4
Perhaps Obama should sue Trump? “Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my 'wires tapped' in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!” “How low has President Obama gone to tapp [sic] my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!” –President Trump... just saying.
2
People who live in glass houses should not throw rocks, Mr president!
3
So he think he can do better than the constitution regarding “fairness”!
He hasn’t got a tenth of the required cognitive capacity. This is not about we the people this is about him, selfish base entitled protectionism.
Toughening the laws on this won’t make him or anyone else any less of a liar though, will it?
It won’t make lies the truth. Can’t he defend himself with simple facts? Of course he can’t.
But it’s par for the course for a wanna be pseudo fascist to try and shut down whistle blowers and truth tellers and to threaten those who would exercise their first amendment rights by surrounding himself with laws to solely protect himself.
How very unpresidential for him to only consider himself in this way BUT how very trump!
trumpery
noun
1. attractive articles of little value or use.
ostentation
synonyms: trinkets, baubles, cheap finery, knick-knacks, ornaments, bibelots, gewgaws.
adjective
1.showy but worthless.
"trumpery jewellery"
3
What a joke! Trump came to power on his racist lie about President Obama’s birthplace...Trump, the Liar in Chief, Impeach, Replace & Remove.
6
It’s part of a plan, not simply a reflex. Gain support of a significant element of the populace by uniting them against a perceived economic threat, like immigration, illegal and legal. Then, make appointments and pass legislation to reward and enrich your inner circle, particularly the bankers. Next, assure support by the military and other forces of order with increased budget allocations. Finally, impose restrictions on the press…..
2
An investigation into libel laws does nothing to serve the interests of the American people. Trump and his every day rich people concerns are completely out of touch with the needs of the American people. He will never really get that he was not elected to serve himself and further his own interests. Not one really exists except Trump and what serves his interests.
1
I agree with Trump.
We can start with him, various media outlets have said he has used the media Twitter to print about 3,000 lies.
That will keep a lot of lawyers in work.
2
Of course, it’s no news that dismantling the free press is the number one priority of any would be despot or budding oligarchy. Id doesn’t have to be as blunt as just introducing straight censorship, Trump has done a very good job of effectively making the established media silent and invisible to his base - as an aside, one has to wonder if it’s a coincidence that what he is doing very closely resembles what Putin has done in Russia, including creating an ”official” outlet that the loyal followers can supposedly trust in the form of Fox news - What is disconcerting is the fact that so many americans, who is a people who generally value freedom and oppose perceived oppression with passion has bought into his world view and thus accepted having the information handed to them being filtered and limited.
If something like this can be done in the US it can happen anywhere and the big risk in things like this is that we in the west take our freedoms and democracy so much as a natural law that we don’t react anywhere near fast enough and with sufficient strength when the institutions upholding this freedom are under attack or even when they, as they are right now, are actually being dismantled in front of us. No, Trump won’t get any changes to libel laws through. He doesn’t have to though, just making a thing of proposing it and perhaps making a token effort furthers cements the notion of ”fake media”. As with everything, the important part is changing people’s minds, not laws.
2
Does Mr Trump realize how rich Hillary Clinton would become if she could sue all the folks who routinely tell lies about her?
14
Watch what you wish for. Libel laws along the lines of Britain would open the way for the huge list of people libelled by Trump with impunity to go after him.
36
Nobody can argue that Trump feels intimidated by accusations of self-interest.
9
Trump, our would-be but won't-be monarch, thinks he IS the law, including libel laws.
24
This is a man who wants one thing and one thing only, to shut up everyone that disagrees with him. The second thing he wants is a dictatorship.
51
Lucikly for the whole planet, the President doesn’t make laws.
32
"If Trump doesn't win in three years, they're [network news reporters] all out of business," the president said.
Trump is off by two years on the time frame. He must survive this year's elections first. And not only will those journalist not be unemployed, but Trump may as well be. Does he even know what the word "eunuch" means?
14
What about making it easier to sue presidents for libel?
46
I guess he got bored before the first amendment during his Constitution lessons....
19
Well this is one for the history books, the Liar-In-Chief calling for truth, who is he kidding. His perception of truth and reality is so self-centred and skewed that I don't know if he would know truth if it hit him on the head. He needs to practice what he preaches - stop lying Donald!
25
If they were looser he would be the most sued human being on the planet. If he's talking, he's libeling.
37
He doesn't have to look far. U.S. libel law is called the First Amendment, and its scope as far as libel of a public figure is concerned is set forth in New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 264 (1964). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan Our president once again shows himself to be both ignorant and dangerous.
24
All part of his daily “fake news” strategy designed to keep the faithful unquestioning his many lies and deceits, with the media a target that helps them keep the blinders on. Well, except Fox, which is essentially the White House newsletter.
18
Yes, by all means...let's make strengthen the law to libel an impeachable offense!
10
That's something Barack Obama should appreciate. Now maybe he'll be able to get at Trump for all of the "not a citizen" accusations he took from Traitor Trump over the years.
27
Oh, I dunno....
" “Can’t say things that are false, knowingly false, and be able to smile as money pours into your bank account. "....
This is exactly what YOU do, virtually every day, DJT: and the money continues to pour into your bank account as tax laws you promote benefit you...
17
This "man" has continuously defamed more Americans than any other human... all in very public ways: full page NY Times ads, Twitter, verbal assaults, etc.
Pretty sure, Obama could then sue and win billions from Trump...
24
Again: Read the Constitution.
14
Can he read? Is there actual evidence that he's literate?
2
“Can’t say things that are false, knowingly false, and be able to smile as money pours into your bank account.”
Uh, Trump University?
32
Good luck, Mr. Trump. The First Amendment is not No. 1 by coincidence. And as a First Amendment lawyer who once represented newspapers and other publications on defamation cases, if someone has actually been libeled and can prove as much, they will likely recover in state court. But you, as a public figure, are rightly subject to a higher standard on proving defamation. The Supreme Court has stated that "it is a prized American privilege to speak one's mind, although not always with perfect good taste, on all public institutions." Justice Brandeis wrote presciently "Those who won our independence believed . . . that public discussion is a political duty, and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies, and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones."
These are bedrock principles in America. I do not think they will be cast aside so easily by a president who embodies many of the reasons why our founders included the First Amendment in our Constitution.
31
Trump knows nothing of bedrock principles. His lack of constitutional knowledge stems from a simple fact: He is functionally illiterate. But he'd tell you that he's a very stable illiterate!
2
He is so wonderful at parading his ignorance of the most basic legal concepts.
13
Freedom of speech and the press have been characterized by many things over the centuries, but I do not recall them ever having been thought to require "fairness," as Trump said. He purports to like originalists and textualists as judges and justices. Where is the word "fair" in the first amendment?
10
Predator Trump is libel to be in jail himself before long, so have at it Shawshank.
7
I view these comments not with disdain but rather with some fear. What is one of the first things dictators do to consolidate their power? Silence the media. While Trump lacks the legal power to do so, I am worried he will repeatedly try and thereby chill the exercise of our First Amendment rights.
9
Does anyone defend this absurdity? Is he going to tell Gorsuch to overturn the New York Times v. Sullivan case? Will the judges who are not his lackeys, there are a few left, go along with this elimination of the First Amm? This is why many are seeing America turn into an authoritarian state.
8
Let's not forget that Gorsuch was installed into a stolen Supreme Court seat--Barack Obama named Merrick Garland to the court, and Mitch McConnell, emboldened by Trump, deliberately ignored Obama's appointment. McConnell deserves to be interrogated about this. Was it part of a plan?
1
I can only imagine how many people would start lining up to sue Trump for libel.
It truly is astonishing how ignorant he is.
14
Now that he’s immune from a libel suit despite his daily lies on every issue under the sun (sovereign immunity by virtue of the Presidency), our so-called President wants to broaden the rights of plaintiffs and strip the free press of the necessary protections already in place.
This man is about as funny as a submarine with a screen door.
6
Have no fear. The moment that he is no longer president, Eric Schneiderman will eviscerate him.
1
He’s about as bright as a broken 100 watt lightbulb!
Does he actually think 1) that everything is all about him? 2) that most people lack the capacity for critical thought, and can be herded and directed by faux news?
1
Warren Buffett once said would you invest into a company that's run by a fool, because someday it will be. The U.S.A. doesn't have to worry if a fool will run the government, today is the day, has been for almost a year.
When will the G.O.P. wake up an understand that this is not the time to have a fool helm?
6
"TORT REFORM! TORT REFORM! TORT REFORM!"
"Except when *I* want to sue someone..."
It would be hard to find a more clear and simple illustration of the personal greed and hypocrisy of this administration.
10
Great. A new jobs program, for Lawyers. Meanwhile, many, many Children will be without Healthcare. Priorities, GOP. And my priority is the Death of your Party. Seriously.
5
How can you insult a person whose greatest insult is his own behaviour?
7
We need to stay on top of this. A tyrant would use this to supress his rivals. It would stifle politicial speach. The US could take a hard right turn to the dark side with this administration unless they are constantly monitored.
6
Trump should be sued for his hundreds of Lies!
Where is the evidence of widespread voter fraud that he said happened when we all found out that he lost the popular vote by almost 3 million ballots?
How long after Obamas full and complete birth certificate was submitted and verified did he repeat claims that Obama was not born in the USA?
Trump is a hopeless political liar who thinks that as long as he moves on to a new topic, nobody will remember that he was wrong with the former topic. This fits well with his generally less educated supporters (Look at the data, I am not just name calling). Trump's supporters go by their "feelings" rather than look at facts and analyze specifics. Maybe that is why they are not working in modern industries but instead trying to do what their grand-dads did.
Any expansion of Libel and Slander laws will be sure to hit Trump first, because he ignores facts and spouts lies more than any other in the modern political arena.
7
Does Trump's idea of libel cover remarks like: Obama was not born in the US? Or his now hundreds of lies and accusations that have no basis in fact? He can cry all he wants, but the first Amendment will cut him off at the knees.
Mr Trump: advocate for something useful for a change.
5
With his every utterance, Trump shows his ignorance. But you must credit him with being honest about his IQ which he proudly displays on his cap: 45.
10
"
"There is freedom of speech, but I cannot guarantee freedom after speech""
4
He may be hoping that a few more SCOTUS appointments like Neil Gorsuch may spell the end of Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart ( no prior restraint under the 1st Amendment ) and New York Times v. Sullivan ( no tort liability to a 'public figure' without actual malice ). An overruling of these two interpretations of the 1st Amendment would severely limit freedom of the press and everybody's freedom of speech - we would all be bigger targets for defamation actions.
3
Trump just wants to outlaw any criticism of himself. This is always the first move by a dictator wannabe. Trump was the dictator of his business but cannot accept that he can't be dictator of the country.
10
Never happen. Perfectly legal to lie in politics. For Trump, it's like golf and Mickey D's ... he's never gonna give it up.
3
“Our current libel laws are a sham and a disgrace and do not represent American values or American fairness.”
President Trumps thoughts on our current libel laws are similar to, if not exactly like, how the majority Americans feel about "our current" President.
One term.
4
Trump still doesn't understand what the three branches of government do.
9
Can we pass a law allowing the citizenry to sue him for lie after lie?
5
We should definitely make lying and defamation serious, punishable crimes, Mr. Trump.
3
He can look at this all he wants. He still believes he's the all powerful Putin wannabe dictator. If the GOP backs this in any way, they are toast to me.
4
It's great to hear that President Trump plans to take a strong look at our libel laws. Mr. Trump may want to start his inquiry by reading the Supreme Court's decision in Sullivan v. New York Times 376 U.S. 254 (1964) to understand why the right to criticize elected officials is a cornerstone of our democracy. As James Madison said in the congressional debate over the First Amendment in 1794 (quoted in the Sullivan v. New York Times) , "If we advert to the nature of Republican Government, we shall find that the censorial power is in the people over the Government, and not in the Government over the people."
7
Trump should read existing libel laws before he sounds off. He is assuming that they don't cover false statements but they do. Truth is considered a defense in a libel suit.
6
Where are all the constitutional "originalists" who should be coming out swinging to defend the First Amendment? Trump attacks the press. He attacks the federal judiciary. He is vile toward our allies. He, Pence, McConnell and Ryan will dismantle our Constitutional government if we let them.
5
Fortunately, like most of his other blatherings, this will go nowhere. As the First Amendment lawyers pointed out, most libel law is based on court precedent, upheld by SCOTUS, not individual laws.
4
It should be plain to anybody with a scintilla of sense that Trump is the last person with any moral standing to authoritatively make pronouncements on this matter. His standards for truth are so inconsistent as to be meaningless.
4
i suspect that trump's plan would require a constitutional amendment. while we are at it, lets make it a requirement that all politicians and their spokes persons must be sworn under oath before they are permitted to address the public by speech, press or tweet. if they do so they go to jail. let's try to get honest politicians in office. would politicians object by claiming it is their right to lie?
3
Well we all know that for Trump and his supporters, the only worthwhile amendment in the Constitution is the 2nd. All those other ones about freedom of speech and right to vote are just un-American.
4
If he wants to change the libel laws he best start by abolishing the First Amendment; then stacking the Supreme Court with extra judges to overturn over a century of case law protecting freedom of speech and the press.
3
Trump is absolutely correct that our libel laws are weak. Because that's not a bug...its a feature of our First Amendment. And I agree that it's too bad if those First Amendment protections are hampering his desire to sue because him suing and thus having to testify under oath would be awesome.
10
Trump is too sensitive to be president.
14
And after trump 'takes a strong look' at these libel laws, what is he going to do about them?? NOTHING.
10
Isn't it a good thing that President's can't pass laws? Thank you, Founding Fathers!
18
And how many persons has Trump told lies about and slandered in his moronic tweets? He should be careful what he wishes for......he just might get it.
19
America in 2017: drunkenly stumbling toward authoritarianism.
19
Day by day, this man fills me with horror.
Where will it all end? When? How?
So I find myself thinking of hurricanes.
Word is brought in, some major hurricane is headed for Texas. Florida. The Carolinas. News reporters rush to those places. The cameras roll: we look at grim-faced homeowners hammering pieces of plywood over their windows. Moving furniture to the second floor. Loading up on canned goods and bottled water. Getting ready to hunker down.
THAT'S WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING RIGHT NOW . . . . .
. . . .my fellow Americans.
The storm winds are rising. The skies are darkening. We are dealing with Hurricane Donald. We have laws and institutions we need to protect. Starting with--but by no means finishing with--the First Amendment We have norms, traditions of decency and fair play. These things we desire to preserve--hand down to our children, our grandchildren.
And Hurricane Donald proposes to blow all these things away. In heavy gusts of hot air--lies--misinformation.
So let's hunker down, shall we. Put up pieces of plywood over our Constitution--our laws--our institutions. They are vulnerable. They can be destroyed. Overwhelmed. Obliterated.
And keep our eyes fixed on Hurricane Donald. We've seen in the last year what hurricanes can do. They too destroy. Devastate. Overwhelm.
And this hurricane is as bad as any. I pray God it'll pass. It may.
But in the meantime--we've got three more years of it.
God help us!
11
What is interesting to me is how would Trump prove libel? He would have to disprove what has been written or stated and how would he do that, exactly? With documentation? LOL. Just like he was going to sue to 16-20 women who claimed sexual harassment! Trump has always used our court system as his personal bully.
10
"Can't say things that are false, knowingly false...," said Trump.
This from a president who has told 2000 lies to the American people in 1 year.
33
Now begins his war on Freedom of Speech.
14
From the man who defames more people than anyone else in the public eye. It's good the White House isn't made of glass.
13
How about making it easier to sue stable geniuses who badmouth everyone?
15
NOW he thinks it’s important to tell the truth? If you look up the definition of liar and irony, you will see a picture of Trump.
13
Mr. Trump gets high marks for consistency on a couple of topics, namely "fake news" and contempt for the rule of law.
7
How about laws making it easier for tenants to sue lousy landlords?
6
Nobody could be more libelous than Trump himself.
Libeling President Obama as an illegitimate President not born in the United States should put Trump away for a century.
21
Once again--what's good for Trump must be god for the USA. With each statement he makes, whether on this issue or any other, Trump displays his impotence and ignorance.
6
The main stream media loved the latest Trump Show because Trump says stupid stuff and shows that he has no idea about how it all works. He often supports the Democrats and it takes the GOP three or four days to clean it up. How did Trump get the reputation that he's a great negotiator? When he black mailed the banks into thinking that they would take quite a hit if they forced him into Chapter 11 or 13. The banks, after that, never loaned him a dime. The rest of his loans came from washed money via Putin.
8
I am sure everyone Trump has publicly libeled over the past decade will be very happy to have him "take a strong look" at the libel laws - I'm sure Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton will be first in queue, along with Mr. Comey, Mr. Mueller, Ms. Fiorina, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Bush, Mr. Rubio, Mr. McCain, . . . . . . . (Hint: the number of people in queue will exceed the number who attended his inauguration!)
14
To the extent he is capable of taking a strong look at anything, he should review libel law because he says libelous things daily.
1
Methinks Trump's new role model is Erdogen, the champion of democracy in Turkey.
4
When, and if, Trump (or Grassley) earn their law degree will I pay attemtion to their opinions expressed on the pros and cons of existing laws.
3
Since Trump has the power to appoint US Supreme Court justices who could roll back First Amendment protections for the press, this is not entirely a hollow threat. Even Trump's Court of Appeal and federal district court appointments can whittle away at press freedoms, bit by bit. The prospect is especially disturbing given Trump's past authoritarian behavior: demanding personal loyalty from a FBI director, treating the DOJ like his personal legal team, and leveling personal insults at judges who do not give him the results he wants.
9
There is many precedents set by the courts that would need to be negated and I don’t see the SCOTUS doing that.
2
This is another attempt by Trump and the Republicans to gut the US Constitution's protection of the Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Speech. It doesn't get any more Anti-American than this folks. Freedom of Speech is the bedrock of our liberty and form of government. The first thing a would be tyrant or dictator does is to take away the people's right to speak against the government. Trump's comments are very close to treason.
6
Just what we need. A million little trumps running around suing everyone.
4
Is it possible that DT can read? I mean more than 140 characters, especially by someone else? Or is his "strong look" at Fox, who will tell him, in tiny sentences, what he can rant about, with no legal effect, by force of a document he has never read, The Constitution that he has sworn to uphold and defend.
2
First of all, he isn't going to do any such thing, but if he could, it would also make it easier for others to sue him.
How much longer is this nightmare going to continue?
5
Is there anyway we can slip Trump (and his cabinet) into the arcological dome set used in The Truman Show where he can watch himself on TV all day. Surely the country would be better off without a president for the next three years. And Trump wouldn't know the difference.
1
How many lawyers does Trump have in his employ? He's got more lawyers guarding his flanks than Secret Service agents and every time he opens his mouth, they gleefully add another car to the gravy train. His whole career is founded upon harassment and intimidation, where he determined early on that keeping a stable of attorneys on retainer gives a better ROI than actually paying his contractors and partners. Fortunately, these tactics have met their match in Mueller, who has no worry about being bankrupted by endless litigation.
1
Criticism of Trump is truthful based on reported and substantiated facts, but Trump is vindictive and any claims of defamation he puts forth is simply malicious prosecution that would be thrown out of court. This is how democracy works. He must learn to take the bad with the good he had for most of his life.
I consider him extremely dangerous.
There were numerous attempts at promoting rioting at his rallies. He once said Hillary Clinton might get shot by someone with a gun, playing the odds that a loose canon who saw him on TV or there might try it. He obliquely threatened national rebellion were he to lose the election as he talked about it to get the word out at a campaign appearance.
So, tell me again, who is conducting the "Witch Hunt"?
5
The president said, “Can’t say things that are false, knowingly false, and be able to smile as money pours into your bank account." Am I the only one that sees the irony pouring from that statement?
"I think what the American people want to see is fairness," he also said. He is absolutely 110 percent right about that.
Of course, I don't believe he really did "think" nor is he capable of doing anything remotely close to "fair" for the American people at large.
3
Sounds more like the prelude to a dictatorship. If the president doesn't like media comments, change the law. Trump is think twice about his remarks. He is guilty of more character assassination then any modern politician
2
Trump can babble about libel laws all he wants, but that isn’t within his purview. Libel laws are constrained by the First Amendment, which no Congress is going to repeal. So even if Trump allies in state government tried to adopt a British-style defamation system, where the defendant bears the burden to prove they wrote truth, that would be tossed by the courts before it went into effect.
And I severely doubt the Supreme Court would change longstanding defamation law principles. There’s no movement in the law to push back against them, and the issue is not dear to either faction in our politics.
2
mr. trump has always said that when he's sued, he counter-sues twice as big and twice as hard, and he has the wherewithal to do so. Some people simply use their wealth to just sue in order to fully intimidate or financially ruin others. That would be trump's MO.
In trump's pursuit of more 'liberal' libel laws will most certainly contain a clause that saddles the loser with the expense of both parties. Now that alone would intimidate plaintiffs.
This is trump demonstrating more of his being an absolute bully!
1
The definition of fait accompli brings to mind about President Donald Trump. He's been there and done that. Remember his books which I have not read gives him an upper hand.
A chance to sue news organizations? Fox News would spend an enormous amount of time in litigation defending their alternate view points which they try to disseminate as fact.
1
Trump can look all he wants but it’s astonishing that he doesn’t know that he can’t weaken First Amendment rights or change case law by fiat. Even if he could, he’d be shooting himself in the foot; there are many who would line up to sue him for the damaging lies he spouts about others.
1
Good luck with that. As a public figure he pretty much un-slander-able or unlibel-able. The bar is very high in the US for a reason, and the First Amendment is not coming down because of his petulance. Besides, as noted by others here, the laws also protect his speech to lie and defame to his heart's content. And when he attacks private people, they can actually fight back with the Actual Malice standard. A more effective strategy on his part would be to Shut Up and study the Constitution.
1
Trump can’t do this — unless he gets the help of the Supreme Court...and specifically the judge he just placed there. Does Gorsuch have a track record on libel and slander?
1
This is a big to-do about nothing. Even if trump himself doesn't know that (other than by overturning the 1st Amendment) only the states have the power to tighten up libel laws, everyone else knows. Why is the subject given so much airtime and so many column-inches?
10
Because trump thinks of himself as dictator in chief, that he can do away with laws and the constitution.
1
The danger here is not that Trump will succeed in soon changing libel law, but that his authoritarian pronouncements further erode public understanding and respect for fundamental tenets of democracy, where there's already sufficiently widespread ignorance and indifference that a Putin-admiring, would-be kleptocrat such as Trump could be elected in the first place. Consider the fate of "the rule of law" under Trump and the right-wing onslaught against Constitutional rights. In their mouths, "the rule of law" has come to mean the abrogation of "due process" rather than its embodiment. This is not creeping authoritarianism. It's galloping.
27
If Trump got weakened libel laws that Trump says Trump wants, then Trump would find himself buried in a blizzard of libel suits. Trump should think about that while tweeting. Or talking. Or communicating in any way.
20
Think? That's not his strong suit. Reactive impulse via Twitter is his M.O.
1
That would require executive function.
1
Libel reform will work both ways: It will also be easier for Hillary to sue The National Enquirer whenever it prints some completely bogus slander of her; and for progressive politicians to sue Fox and Breitbart whenever they put out false claims. That’ll be a lot of lawsuits.
15
Trump thought the libel and slander laws were just fine when he was slandering and libeling Barack Obama during Trump's birther conspiracy rantings. In the dictatorship of Donald Trump, only Trump has freedom of speech.
31
The only good news in this, aside from the fact that it is yet another thing he cannot really influence but will merely rail against, is that he'd be the Offender in Chief on this front.
My favorite lines-- "We want fairness," the president said. " Can't say things that are false, knowingly false, and be able to smile as money pours into your bank account." The history of the Trump Organization and Trump University in a nutshell. Whether it is libel or in his case, fraud, the principal is the same. As usual, it is okay for him but wrong for others.
Maybe Mr. Wolff should just tear a page out of Donald's book and laugh it off as truthful hyperbole.
9
Well, that brief experiment in re-calibrating the president's media image has certainly failed. What you see is what you get and it gets scarier by the day.
13
Do not despair. Judging from the accompanying photo, trumpkins may well be on the edge of suffering a fit of apoplexy. Wouldn't it be grand to see this, say, on TV, in whose domain he lives his mental life, then to see his subsequent demise on TV also. Fitting justice.
3
"Crooked Hillary" Donald Trump would be in deep trouble were libel law were as strict as he espouses.
7
Over the past year, I've watched in horror as this administration has repeated flaunted its disrespect for our people, country and constitution. Each outrage would have been enough to sink any previous administration, and yet it seems that nothing will stop this disintegration of our national values. This is simply one more brick on the load. The heck with libel - this entire enterprise and its enablers should be charged with treason!
7
what he wants is to be able to more easily silence the media by scaring reporters with the threat of a law suit...... the same tactics he used to avoid paying small contractors.
7
Let's take up a collection to help Mr. Trump emigrate to, say, China, the libel laws of which should be much more to his liking. Obviously, he finds American values like the first Amendment obnoxious, and so should be happier somewhere freedom of speech is not so favorably viewed. I'd suggest a maximum of $10,000 to defray his emigration costs, payable the moment he surrenders his US citizenship, with a one-time cash bonus of $1,000 if it happens in the next six months.
Anyone else care to join?
7
A point for Trump to ponder:
"If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." Harry S Truman
It's no job for the thin-skinned.
12
If I read this drama correctly, the nightmare is almost over. Whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, this has been the most bone-chilling administration in history. Anyone and everyone knows that this man is totally out of his element, and has no intention of changing. I won't insult him with names or labels, but history will record this presidency as a misguided and unfortunate leap into the unknown. The United States will suffer the consequences of this mess for years to come. And for that, I am deeply saddened.
13
We need more lenient laws so we can sue government officials.
2
Whether or not he takes a "strong look" at libel laws, v. Sullivan isn't going anywhere unless he finds a way to replace most of the Supreme Court. Moreover, the notion of a man who has been labeled a functional illiterate taking a look at anything that involves reading as opposed to watching Fox is laughable.
9
Our Constitution, our traditions, and our courts provide strong protection for freedom of speech and of the press. This is as it should be. Unless President Trump treads carefully and gently, he will lose this battle, which is a good thing.
That said, sometimes the press does get it wrong, and overstep the line. Here's an example which caught my eye from the Times' own pages, in an article which appeared last summer:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/28/us/hurricane-harvey-houston-hospitals...
Early in the article, it is stated without context or equivocation that following hurricane Katrina in 2005 a physician and nurses at Memorial Hospital "intentionally hastened the deaths of their patients." The reporter, Sherri Fink, believes this, but courts of law and the court of public opinion feel otherwise. A grand jury refused to return an indictment on these charges, and the district attorney who brought charges in this matter was voted out of office, in part because of this case. Further, the reporter appears to have a financial conflict of interest: about a month before this story appeared in the Times, she apparently sold rights to her book on the subject to a television station, which is making a "documentary."
As a reader of the Times I don't know all the facts, but I can't help but wonder if this story crossed a line, and if people, such as the medical professionals in this case, need some legal protection from questionable claims made in news stories.
2
When I first heard President Trump say, “' [You] Can’t say things that are false, knowingly false, and be able to smile as money pours into your bank account,'" I thought he actually was talking about himself. He's reported to have lied over 2000 times since talking office yet money is really pouring in to his Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C. But despite the nasty issue of the "emoluments clause" of the Constitution, I gather he's talking about others who he thinks are libeling him as in the new book "Fire and Fury." Of course, it demonstrates yet again his disdain for the first amendment and the "freedom of the press" it enshrines. But, as always with Trump, it all boils down to the autocracy of narcissism and his incessant need, really demand, for adulation.
8
Amazing, how he really does seem to believe the world revolves around him. News organizations were in business a long time before trump and will continue long after he has exited the stage.
2
Every authoritarian Govt. starts the purge with the most vulnerable citizens. When there is more backlash, they are emboldened to go after more powerful, more entrenched interests until there is no resistance left.
1
There is a lot of confusion spread by, and reflected in, the comments. Defamation is no longer a matter of state law. The Supreme Court federalized it, in a sense, with Times v. Sullivan. Libel law does not exist to protect free speech. It is a clear intrusion on free speech. It is the Supreme Court's requirements that protect some free speech, but only by limiting, not harnessing, libel law.
Finally and perhaps overlooked in the whole discussion is the fact that defamation law universally requires that the plaintiff prove, by at least a preponderance of the evidence, that it suffered damage, and definitely not just to its feelings. Plaintiff must always prove that people shun and avoid it BECAUSE OF THE FALSE STATEMENT OF FACT.
It would surely be impossible to satisfy that requirement. People have an untold number of reasons to shun and avoid Trump. To imagine someone who didn't, and than did only because of one person's statements defies credibility. Trump is surely one of the few people in the world who could never successfully sue for defamation.
2
After insulting just about everyone during the primaries, after the election and contiuing long into his first year as president, it is incredible that he is taking the position that he is the one being libeled. What a poor excuse of a man
4
So, he wants to changes the libel laws so that people cannot say false things and profit by it? Can I assume he is thinking of a certain real estate tycoon who claimed in print, on many occasions and over many years, that the President was born in Africa?
No, I thought not.
5
No day goes by where I don't shake my head in disbelief that enough of the American electorate elected such a self absorbed baffoon as president.
9
The real irony would be if he made it easier to sue for libel and then was sued for the lies he's told about people in the past and in the present. I'm reminded of what he said about a certain Barack Obama not being born here. And then there were his statements about Clinton, Comey, and others not quite as well known, some of which were outright lies.
To quote Commander Spock: Fascinating.
16
I fear I have found the flaw in the comments and in Trump's position: the notion that it is either illegal or tortious to tell untruthful statements. There is no inevitable legal remedy for people lying. it is only if they lie and truly injure your reputation in a damaging way that there is a lawsuit.
Trump has never had to be accountable, and he wants to keep it that way.
26
"Can't say things that are false, knowingly false, and be able to smile while money pours into your bank account". That is an exact description of your presidency so far.
35
BTW, it is now clear that the meeting on immigration was a setup. It is clear that his advisors foresaw the judge's ruling on DACA and quickly scheduled this meeting so he could complain about it. What a sleazeball. If that were all he was, it wouldn't be so bad. But his attempts to manipulate the news media, the courts, and even the libel laws (as if he could arbirtrarily change the law) show that he is not only an egomaniac but slimy and dangerous. We can only hope that he is out of his job in three years (if not sooner).
18
I again refer everyone to "Donald J. Trump Is A Libel Bully But Also A Libel Loser" written by Susan Seager at the ABA in 2016 (but not published for fear of retribution because Trump is a wealthy, vindictive bully, as seen in the article).
It begins:
"Donald J. Trump is a libel bully. Like most bullies, he's also a loser, to borrow from Trump's vocabulary.
Trump and his companies have been involved in a mind-boggling 4,000 lawsuits over the last 30 years and sent countless threatening cease-and-desist letters to journalists and critics.[1]
But the GOP presidential nominee and his companies have never won a single speech-related case filed in a public court.
This article examines seven speech-related cases brought by Trump and his companies, which include four dismissals on the merits, two voluntary withdrawals, and one lone victory in an arbitration won by default. Media defense lawyers would do well to remind Trump of his sorry record in speech-related cases filed in public courts when responding to bullying libel cease-and-desist letters.
Trump's lawsuits are worthy of a comedy routine, as when Trump sued HBO comedian Bill Maher for suckering Trump into sending his birth certificate to prove he was not the "spawn" of an orangutan, and Trump hit back with a $5-million breach-of-contract lawsuit, only to withdraw it after the Hollywood Reporter ridiculed it. Can anyone say Hustler v. Falwell?[2]"
Enjoy!
30
Maybe media outlets and reporters should be suing Mr. Trump for libel. After all, he has disparaged them and called them liars on many occasions even when they have documented sources for their reporting. Mr. Cohen should be careful - lawsuits allow for discovery - I wonder what interesting questions BuzzFeed attorneys could ask him under oath? Seriously though, Mr. Trump's disdain for the First Amendment is scary and disgusting. Given Mr. Trump's penchant for spewing libelous accusations, such as Ted Cruz's father being involved the the Kennedy assassination or the "Birther" lie he perpetuated against President Obama, it's laughable that he would bring this up. Trump is protected daily by the first Amendment. By stating ..."when somebody says something that is false and defamatory about someone, that person will have a meaningful recourse in our courts" - it's a pretty astounding statement given the fact he clearly isn't equating it with his own behavior.
20
It's not enough that he is (nominally?) in charge of the Executive branch of government and has made it clear that he believes himself not to be subject to the Judicial branch, but now he wants control of the Legislative branch? Someone needs to tell him that the United States is a representative democracy/republic and not a dictatorship.
17
I’m not surprised. Nevertheless, I am shocked. Libel and slander are defined as being untrue. The First Amendment clearly defines the ability of citizens to criticize government and its elected officials. Anyone for Canada?!?
6
Trump can't stand that he can't dictate what all the other newspapers and TV say about him. He can't stand that are not Fox and Friends and they are the REAL NEWS. The REAL NEWS are not going to stroke his ego like Fox and Friends does. And oh ya there is this little thing called the 1st amendment of the Constitution.
10
Trump himself would be annihilated by these laws. He is constantly slandering and defaming people.
This is just more gas lighting for his base, and an attempt to appear as the injured party.
15
Aside from not knowing the difference between libel and slander, 45 doesn't know enough about the law to know that most libel and slander laws are state laws which he can have no effect on. Or that speech and the printed word are both protected by the 1st Amendment. Nor does he seem to understand that if we were to "tighten up" on slander laws, he would have very little to say.
5
He says "very little" to start with, at least in substance. accuracy, and truthfulness. Bombast a'plenty, however, along with lies, obfuscation, and nonsense.
1
Trump's problem, of course, is that revising libel laws would force him to understand, and maybe even read, the libel laws of this nation. Both of these tasks seem insurmountable by this President. Therefore, for the foreseeable future, while Mr. Trump sits in the Oval Office, our libel laws are safe.
5
Our Constitution provides strong protection for freedom of the press. Which is a very good thing. I doubt President Trump will be successfully in watering down this protection by changing our libel laws.
But one can't help but note that it is the New York Times and liberal politicians that may be the greatest enemy of freedom of the press. I refer to the SCOTUS Citizens United decision, which held that a law which restricts the ability of corporations to voice their opinions is an an unconstitutional law. This was the right decision.
Let us all remember that just about all media organizations, including the New York Times, are corporations.
Unfathomably, the New York Times has fervently and repeatedly called to have Citizens United overturned. Hillary Clinton, while running for President, promised to make it a priority to try to amend the Bill of Rights itself to invalidate the decision.
We must all remember the importance of a free press to our democracy. The solution to speech and writing to which one objects is not to silence the speaker; the solution is more speech. Yes, there are exceptions, but we must be careful to limit the restrictions we impose on the press. The media often has great power, and must not be negligent in what is published. But our libel laws must be fashioned with care. All, including this newspaper, must recognize the importance of a free press, including corporate media. SCOTUS's ruling in Citizens United was correct.
2
From Vox 09/11/2014
Republicans have argued that this is the first time in US history that the Bill of Rights would ever have been altered. However, the amendment itself doesn't actually strike out any text in the First Amendment, or the Bill of Rights more generally. What it would do is shoot down the current Supreme Court majority's interpretation that the First Amendment prevents caps on election spending. Much of this interpretation was laid out in the 1976 case Buckley v. Valeo, and it was expanded on by several more recent Roberts Court rulings. But the interpretation has always been controversial, even within the Court itself — the recent major campaign finance rulings have all been 5 to 4.
Difference of opinion-SCOTUS ruling was incorrect.
1
You completely fail to understand the nature of both freedom of the press and the import of the CItizens United case.
The New York Times (as well as other press institutions), are protected not by virtue of their ownership structure (be it corporate, a partnership or a sole proprietorship), but because they are part of the press whose freedoms are guaranteed under the First Amendment. So they hardly needed Citizens United to protect their ability to report.
The import of Citizens United was that it defined corporation as "persons" under the First Amendment, and, effectively that money is the same thing as speech. Both of those ideas would have utterly abhorrent to the nation's founders.
1
The president already has what he wants. Knowingly false speech about a public official is punishable under the First Amendment.
But there's a catch. To win bigly, he must PROVE that the offending statements were false and that the speaker or publisher knew they were false, or that the speaker or publisher acted with reckless disregard for whether the statements were false or not.
I assume that his lawyers will ask to be paid by the hour, not on contingency.
6
Trump, as a proponent of the right-to-lie movement, shouldn't even be bringing this up.
5
This is testament to the ignorance of Trump.
When Trump says "libel laws" what he really means is "I am going to re-write the 1st Amendment of the U. S. Constitution" because the Supreme Court of the United States has been very clear (especially the conservative justices) in their protection of freedom of speech. The case he will want to look into is NY TImes v. Sullivan. Not coincidentally, the case involved a racist Alabama police commissioner suing for defamation (and losing).
So Trump is going to need an amendment to the Constitution and amendments on this topic are impossible.
So what have we learned?
1. Trump does not understand basic rights protected by the Constitution.
2. In reality, Trump is not going to do a single thing.
3. Trump's infinite slef-confidence is only exceeded by his infinite ignorance.
4. Trump is all talk and no action.
I hope journalists will check in with Emperor Trump after he takes his so-called "strong look." It will be interesting to see what the POTUS learns should he actually do said inquiry. My bet? No inquiry, no learning will occur. Instead we will be treated to more empty threats of lawsuits and re-writes of libel laws.
Every time Trump talks we get a little more insight into just how much he does not know. His call for a "clean bill" on DACA is a case in point. Trump is all for it becuase he does not know what a clean bill is. Meanwhile, the other GOP nuggets in the room look on horror as Trump rattles on.
6
This is reminiscent of how Richard Nixon kept digging himself on deeper, after the release of the "Pentagon Papers" leak. The documents mostly just reflected badly on his predecessors, but Richard Just couldn't help making it worse for himself.
Likewise, juicy tell all books are fairly standard during an administration. A wise leader leaves well enough alone, and moves on. DT will hit a brick wall with this push. There's not a court in the land that would interfere with Freedom of the Press.
2
Why is the rock Trump tries to throw at other people always the one he is also hiding under?
He seems to have a minus level of self-awareness. It is getting boring.
13
tRump needs to understand the First Amendment. But he'd require an education, first, to do so. Not likely!
2
Why can't he use the existing libel laws to protect his reputation? It would be great if he did sue Mr. Wolff, then we could have all the principals involved testify in court.
“President Trump’s threat to revise our country’s libel laws is, frankly, not credible.”
His threat shows us once again how erratic and ill-prepared he is. It shows us that he is no friend of the Constitution.
4
Unless someone disbands the federal court system established under Article III of the Constitution, as well as the court systems in 50 states, Trump can 'take a look at the libel laws' all he wants. Those laws are the product of the First Amendment and a few hundred years of decisional law - which we can be reasonably sure Mr. Trump has never read, much less studied and understood.
Our 'President' wouldn't know the rule of law if it smacked him upside the head - which it just may do any day now, if Mr. Mueller's investigation continues unabated. Contrary to Mr. Trump's misguided belief, the United States is not the same thing as 'The Trump Organization.' It is not a closely held private business he may rule by whim and fiat, primarily for his own benefit and self-aggrandizement. The drafters of the Constitution went to great lengths to ensure our nation would never become any such thing.
I'm still putting my money on the Constitution, not on Donald Trump and his entourage of sycophants and opportunists. Donald Trump is a mere bump in the road. The Constitution is a long highway stretching from the 18th century into the 21st century and, with any luck, far beyond that.
I await the time, in the not too distant future, when this rough stretch of road called Donald Trump and 'Trumpism' will be behind us.
4
If one can't say things that are knowingly false, Donald Trump will never be allowed to speak again.
5
Beware of politicians calling for tougher libel laws. Australia's libel laws were so tough that the UN listed them as in breach of the human rights charter.
And Australian politicians used the laws shamelessly to bury criticism. And for personal profit. A former prime minister boasted that one newspaper paid for his tennis court, another paid for his swimming pool, etc.
Believe me, the First Amendment in the US Constitution is something Americans should treasure.
8
His goal is not to make it easier to sue news organizations and publishers for defamation. His goal is to make telling the truth, especially about him, a crime.
7
The article said it, and I'm sure dozens of comments repeated but here goes: Trump first said he would "loosen libel laws" during his campaign, now a year and half ago. How many people have told him that these are interpretations of the Constitution of the United States defined by dozens of Supreme Court decisions.
The Federalist Papers refereed to his position as "chief Magistrate" meaning he would abide by and protect laws with the great power of his office. What he is doing is debasing the efforts millions over two centuries of our nation's existence.
And this person doesn't even understand the damage he is doing.
2
And, thus, Trump has given Congress enough for impeachment. Cracking down on a free press, or free speech, is very dangerous and why it is enshrined in the Bill of Rights. To try to curtail, such freedom, violates his oath of protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States of America. It is one thing for a private citizen claim defamation, it is quite another to force legislation that limits free speech, because a politician feels the media defamed them. Even if the allegations are true.
Doing, what Trump wants, sends the US down the same path as Russia and Turkey; a Republic in Name Only.
10
We should welcome this change. President Trump, his advisors, relatives and sycophants will be the first to experience "meaningful recourse in the courts".
5
Defamation law is the common law of torts, and as such, it is state law. Where federal law comes in are the U.S. Supreme Court decisions starting with the landmark New York Times v. Sullivan, which stated that public officials (and in later decisions, public figures, even those who are "limited-purpose" because they are ordinary people involved in public controversies) need to show "actual malice": that the media outlet acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
In all defamation actions, the truth of the allegedly defamatory statements is an affirmative defense.
Trump has threatened to sue dozens of people for defamation over the past few decades but he has never once followed through. If he sues someone for saying he is a money launderer, for example, the defendant would be able, through discovery, to subpoena Trump's financial records to prove that the defendant's statements were true. Similarly, if he sued someone who accused him of sexual harassment for defamation, that defendant would be able to introduce evidence showing that Trump had harassed her.
Trump doesn't want to open a can of worms and so he will not sue anyone for defamation.
As for the law of defamation, Trump is utterly powerless. He is just too ignorant and unintelligent to know otherwise.
(President Trump: you can try suing me for saying you're ignorant and unintelligent. Bring the case on! I'd love it!)
19
All anyone who makes a statement about tRump, or any public official has to say is,"In our opinions, or my opinion. We believe these to be the facts.
You could say for instance, from what I have read about him, he has sex with sheep, and there is nothing thing he could do about it.
4
The man who continuously lies and slanders everyone from his own Cabinet secretaries to the families of fallen soldiers should be careful about changing the laws for libel and slander.
13
Trump will defend the Constitution to the death when more than 600 people are shot and 58 die in Las Vegas.
But someone says something mean about him in a book, and suddenly the Constitution means nothing.
99
"Not fair," Our Failure of a President whined. "People are saying mean things about me." sniffle, sniffle, sniffle.
What's the old adage about being able to "dish it out," but not being able to take it?
33
Trump had no problem libaling and slandering Barack Obama, John McCain, the Khan's, a gold star family, Hilliary Clinton, the women who accused him of sexual assault, and several senators. In Trump's dictatorship, only Trump has freedom of speech.
1
The press back when Adams and Jefferson were electoral adversaries would have given Trump apoplexy without any doubt. Freedom of the press since New York Times vs. Sullivan makes libel regarding public officials very different than for private citizens. In the Sullivan case the plaintiff was trying to gag the press by suing for libel over inaccuracies in a news account which did not change the accuracy of the reporting materially. It was a clear attempt to stop press reports which the plaintiff did not want printed, and Trump's motives are transparently the same. The Supreme Court might reverse itself due to the conservative majority but that is just a possibility. Trump's contempt for our personal liberties and the limitations upon Presidents imposed by our constitution is perfectly clear. But the constitution was written to frustrated characters like Trump from making themselves into dictators.
18
Trump: people shouldn’t be able to say things that are false.
Trump:
"The murder rate in our country is the highest it’s been in 47 years." False.
There is "substantial evidence of voter fraud." False.
"Hillary Clinton lied many times to the FBI." False.
Says the tax bill "is going to cost me a fortune, this thing -- believe me. Believe me, this is not good for me." False.
"I did not support the war in Iraq … The record shows that I’m right." False.
There is "no system to vet" refugees from the Middle East. False.
Says President Obama's "grandmother in Kenya said he was born in Kenya and she was there and witnessed the birth." False.
According to a careful analysis by the Times, President Donald Trump has told nearly six times more lies in the first 10 months of his presidency than former President Barack Obama did in his entire 8-year term.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/14/opinion/sunday/trump-lies...
84
"the publisher responded by moving up the book’s release date and increasing the book’s first print run to one million, from 150,000."
Perfect answer!
43
Libel laws are not only to prevent against being defamed, they are to protect those who try to tell the truth. Of course, the Lier-in-Chief is the first to want to change this so he can after "fake news" and journalists, those "enemies of the people" - Authoritarianism 101.
17
Has someone told him libel laws are a combination of common law and state statutes? It is not something the King can just change. And BTW, talk about libel....he should thank his lucky stars President Obama didn't or hasn't sued him.
31
“Can’t say things that are false, knowingly false, and be able to smile as money pours into your bank account." -- Trump
Everything with him is about money. If other people have it, he wants it. He won't be satisfied until he has every dollar, euro, pound, ruble, and dinar on earth. As for changing the libel laws at the federal level, SCOTUS would have to reverse Times v. Sullivan (very unlikely), or the country would have to pass a Constitutional amendment overriding that decion (extremely unlikely). Times v Sullivan particularly applies to public figures' prevailing in a libel suit. Trump is the most public figure on earth. Good luck with that, Mr. President.
13
The Very Stable Genius can look at them strongly or weakly, whatever. It apparently has yet to dawn on him that he can't rule by decree.
22
Reporters and editors fail to properly do their jobs when they reference Sullivan without providing context -- just a sentence or two -- to explain the case. Americans need to understand how libel laws prior to Sullivan were used as a weapon by the government to silence dissent, and how the case centered on those trying to punish defenders of the Civil Rights Movement and attempting to stop the jailing of MLK on trumped up charges. With a different decision, the ability to successful pursue the Civil Rights Movement and equal rights for African-Americans would have been dealt a serious blow. A cursory reference is not good enough, and also fails to show the NYT's own important role in stopping government from using libel laws as a weapon.
15
Remember DJT, that cuts both ways.
22
Our "President" probably thinks he can change the libel laws himself by kingly degree.
Please get this guy a picture book that illustrates the basic principles of the Constitution.
24
Make sure it has cloth or cardboard pages that he can't easily tear out if the content angers him.
2
Dopey Donald has no idea what the First Amendment says, or what it means.
Dopey Donald has no idea that the Supreme Court of the United States had opined in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) that in the case of a public figure (like the POTUS, for example) the standard of proof is the "actual malice" standard.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan
The actual malice standard requires that the plaintiff in a defamation or libel case, if that person is a public figure, prove that the publisher of the statement in question knew that the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity. Because of the extremely high burden of proof on the plaintiff, and the difficulty of proving the defendant's knowledge and intentions, such claims by public figures rarely prevail.
6
Wait. I thought they already explained the First Amendment to him. I'd love to be there when he learns about defamation. It may occur to him that he is the biggest offender. It's possible.
7
Wolff says they got to the Fourth Amendment before Trump got too bored to go on. Probably fake news. I can't see him getting that far. Punish Wolff!
But of course Trump can lie all he wants and that's okay. God save the First Amendment.
7
The simple fact that almost entirely, defamation is within the purview of state law means that Trump's obsession is purely personal. There is no legitimate reason for the president to concern himself in his official capacity with this area of the law.
8
President Trump thinks he can change libel laws to make them more accommodating to public figures so they can shut down newspapers and book publishers.
It's no wonder Sam Nunberg couldn't get past the Fourth Amendment when trying to explain the Constitution to the President. Although if he had been able to get that far successfully, maybe Trump should have understood that the limitations on libel were imposed by the Supreme Court because our Constitution's First Amendment required them.
Times v. Sullivan (1964) clearly held that the libel laws had to be liberalized to allow full debate of public figures and public issues. To avoid "chilling" the press from self-censorship to avoid getting it wrong, the Court said, publishers could not be sued for being wrong, unless they knew what they said was false, or recklessly ignored the truth.
We and the President can always take another look at this essential part of free speech, and thus of a free society, but we can never take the chance of losing it. Mr. Nunberg, your student needs a refresher course.
4
After all, the First Amendment only applies to free speech about little people.
6
Trump better be careful about what he wishes for. He has probably defamed more people over the past two years, through his tweets and public statements, then all the media put together. Could you imagine what Hillary Clinton alone could sue him for? Let alone Obama, Comey, McCain, his sexual harassment accusers, people at CNN, etc..He would be drowning in lawsuits if this came to pass.
207
I am actually surprised that more people have not sued him even with our current libel laws. For example, now that Hillary is a private citizen, why wouldn't she have any standing in the courts for all the lies he spews about her?
1
Perhaps the White House counsel will nerve up and explain to the president that only strong libel laws prevent Mr. Trump from being snowed under by actions in response to his almost daily insults on his Tweet machine.
113
I find myself wanting to say to Trump,"Who who-do-you-think-you-are?!!!!" (You know the tone of a parent setting a rude child straight.) Clearly he doesn't think that he serves "by the people, for the people" under Constitutional law protecting freedom of speech and press, as perhaps democracy's most essential right.
American lovers of free speech and a press must show Republicans in 2018 who we are!
39
Network anchors sent letters of congratulations?????? If it is any network outside of Fox, I want to know. And, I will never watch that network again.
65
Keep in mind Trump said that, so it's probably a lie.
16
No worries here - a "STRONG LOOK" at Libel Laws is about all he is capable of,
since we know he cannot read. LIBEL is probably what several of the lawsuits AGAINST him were all about; but still, no worry - he's forgotten about them!
30
24/7 distraction to rile the liberals and calm the base. He may be a child but he knows how to throw a tantrum for network and cable consumption. The weird thing is, how much he does to keep his media foes in their jobs talking about him.
10
I used to let him get to me. What I mainly feel these days is pity. The man is unwell. He's Ali after Foreman, and no one in his entourage will level with him.
11
Of all the steps towards Fascism that Trump wants to take or has taken, to undermine the !st Amendment by making our libel laws runs a close second to his efforts to undermine the judicial system.
It took Mussolini about two years to undermine Italy's nascent democracy. With four, Trumo can come close, if can subvert the institutional checks and balances which to this point have circumscribed his Mussolini Project.
We have the most free press in the world in good measure because the courts have interpreted the 1st Amendment tp protect good faith reporting and place a high burden of proof on public figures (creatures of the Swamp in Trump lingo) who would like to hide from the light by suppressing public criticism of their actions (or inaction).
16
When I see the words "sham and disgrace," my thoughts always turn to Donald Trump.
56
Tell you what, Mr. Trump. Every time you accuse any new organization of publishing "fake news", we'll have them sue you for libel, as you are defaming the character of their work product and attacking their first amendment rights as well. Two can play at that game.
135
What a bully? Everything, and I mean everything, is a threat.
If he could, he would shut down newspapers.
16
He can't even remember the words to the national anthem these days.
Newspapers are safe.
5
Too bad the resident was not held back in kindergarten. Till he learned to reason. He’d still be there.
11
And keep his hands to himself.
8
He might consider the Pottery Barn Rule when he "looks".
3
Once upon a time in Western civilization, the law was known as "the KING'S law," and courts and jurors were to rubber stamp convictions of anyone who publicized information that was malicious or scandalous about the powers-that-be (or were). At the time, not only was the TRUTH not considered a defense against the charge, it was actually an AGGRAVATING factor because telling scandalous truths was even more damaging to the government and/or crown! Eventually, the masses rebelled, juries started refusing to convict (some were ruinously fined or physically punished quite severely for their refusal), and this favorite toy of authoritarians became useless.
Enter Trump. As ever, Trump INSTINCTIVELY gravitates towards a despotic style of leadership. Please recall that this is the same administration that wrings its hands because college students are too quick to protest speakers coming on campus to spread nonsense under the guise of conservatism. Trump now fantasizes about making it easier for him to ruin anyone who criticizes him. This is no different than when he publicly mused about having the FCC take a closer look at the licenses of his critics. See also, his attempts to indirectly stick it to CNN using anti-trust laws.
The common term for this is... abuse of power.
8
Wrong. Mr. President, knowing our Constitution would educate you to the error of your statement. It's just that simple.
12
Knowing the words to the National Anthem may also help!
4
Can’t say things that are false, knowingly false, and be able to smile as money pours into your bank account
Unless you are President Trump.....
18
Someone should tell this guy, if you can't stand the heat in the kitchen, get out!
7
Perhaps a "strong look" might involve actual reading.
10
Could there possibly be a more succinct description of Trump's private-sector business model than "say things that are false and then smile as money pours into your bank account?" As an added bonus, it applies equally well to the kleptocracy he's put in place as President.
19
There's Humor in Hypocrisy.
The president said, "Can’t say things that are false, knowingly false, and be able to smile as money pours into your bank account."
This is the same Donald J. Trump who rode the waves of fame and fortune into the presidency of the United States! through a lifetime of saying "things that are false, knowingly false." His lies, manipulations, evasions, disregard for the lives of others all with his "smile and a shoeshine" have carried him to undreamed of fame (and, if the report is not false) into a presidency neither he nor his wife and family really desired. (The current Mrs. Trump's discomfort is real, not phony.) As for "fairness," we have only to ask those who have been bamboozled, swindled and mistreated by Donald J. Trump and his ambitious wheeler-dealer, publicity-loving time among us: "What was it like?"
Even the wish to loosen libel laws is aimed at making it a cinch for The Donald to increase his "sue 'em" star on the Litigation Walk of Infamy.
Those watchers steeped in theatrical drama are waiting for his Shakespearean drama to unravel in the final scene of Act Five.
Doug Giebel, Big Sandy, Montana
12
How much longer can this continue?
7
It’s possible with firm SCOTUS majority which could be in place before the end of the year. It’s also reasonable, given the recent runaway excesses of Fusion, Freedom, and Fire.
And that’s just the short run. In the long run, once the GOP have 34 states in bag, expect a flurry of amendments. Starting, hopefully, with one narrowing what natural-born really means (biological, to US parents, and inside US territory). Setting stage in one swoop, to reverse both, the long-running fraud of anchor babies, and also putting to rest whatever presidential ambitions Ted Cruz may have.
The non-stop scandalizing and persistent undermining of a legally-elected President by the Press must stop! It’s not just obstructing the work of the nation's highest office, but also costing the Democratic Party permanent insignificance, meaning the republic is staring at at least half-century of one-party rule.
Still, better than the current state of dirt-diggers peddling sleaze to an eager press, dodging subpoenas etc., all in the name of good citizenship. Ha! Thanks the laughs, conFusion! You had better hope those calls were really encrypted and truly purged. I smell toast. Bah.
1
"It’s possible with firm SCOTUS majority which could be in place before the end of the year."
Justice Ginsberg is not planning to retire. She has just appointed clerks through 2019.
1
@Mary
She’s 84 and tottering. Not to mention stubborn, and likely grumpy. Clerking for her has got to be stressful, to say the least. Still, young lawyers learning elder-care skills, who can have a problem with that?
Swinging Kennedy at 81 is hanging on too. So is Breyer, not so tottering at 79, but almost there.
The order of exits doesn’t really matter, as long as they leave graciously, and soon. Sure, can hire as many aides and clerks they want to fake thinking they’re set to stay forever. Who cares? But goodbye is just round the corner, we know it.
So does Trump. He’s got 19 replacements itching-to-go short-listed, two already interviewed.
The proper, patriotic thing to do, therefore, is for all three to storm out together, in a one grand flourish. Full coverage, complete with blaring headlines, angry Op-Eds, and glowing bios guaranteed. Just go. Hurry. Puh-leez.
1
If you can't stand the heat ...
3
Ah, the perpetually lying man strikes again.
What will the lawyers do when he wants to sue over the truth?
17
The Supreme Court's decision in Sullivan v. The New York Times - which interprets the libel laws as applied to public figures under the First and Fourteenth Amendments - cannot be changed by Trump or the Congress unless they attempt to amend the First Amendment, which also requires the approval of 3/4ths of the states. So I don't think Trump can do anything to better protect himself and other public figures.
2
There is a reason why libel laws are much stricter as they concern public figures as opposed to private individuals. As it concerns people like Trump, the press must be free to investigate, question, and report on the activities of those who are acting on our behalf and for the supposed good of the country, without fear of retribution. Striking at libel laws also strikes at truth, wherever it may lead. It will have a chilling effect on the 2nd Amendment and further cripple a “free” press that is already being constrained by media business conglomerates and outside influences.
This is what dictators do, They control the message by controlling the press. Name one healthy, functional government that shackles reporters. It doesn’t exist.
But the most galling thing about this is, this is just the same old self-serving Donald Trump that most of us have come to know and loathe. He has no concern about the truth, however he defines it; he just wants to get his revenge on the press, no matter what damage it does to the Constitution or us. He simply does not care. It’s all personal with him, and that shows a gross misunderstanding of — and abuse of — his powers as president.
4
Didn't he waste allot of time with the birther issue? Claiming the last president was not born in the states. Then there was the whole "Nasty woman" issue during the Champaign. Oh and so many more rude, hypocritical actions since. So now he feels the libel laws aren't strong enough. Bet the media is shaking in their boots because #45 is so not capable of getting much done so this is just another idle threat.
2
With every cry Fake News
With his slash and burn attacks on freedom of speech
With every exhortation of violence against anyone, anywhere who disagrees with his MAGA inhumanity
Trump moves us toward the terrifying day:
"The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became the truth."
George Orwell, 1984
7
Right. This from the knave who claimed that his agents in Hawaii had uncovered evidence that Obama's birth certificate was phony.
Trump defames his fellow Americans on a daily basis.
26
Our racist Birther-Liar-In-Chief wants to be protected from libel and slander.
That's rich.
"His grandmother in Kenya said, 'Oh, no, he was born in Kenya and I was there and I witnessed the birth.' She's on tape. I think that tape's going to be produced fairly soon. Somebody is coming out with a book in two weeks, it will be very interesting." - Donald Trump
"A lot of people do not think it was an authentic certificate. ... Many people do not think it was authentic. His mother was not in the hospital. There are many other things that came out. And frankly if you would report it accurately I think you'd probably get better ratings than you're getting." - Donald Trump
"An 'extremely credible source' has called my office and told me that @BarackObama's birth certificate is a fraud." - Donald Trump
"Was it a birth certificate? You tell me. Some people say that was not his birth certificate. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. I'm saying I don't know. Nobody knows." - Donald Trump
Nobody does moral, intellectual and economic bankruptcy better than Donald Trump.
436
A personal thank you, Socrates, for all your work and fine commentary.
17
Has he even *read* the Constitution?
21
Probably because he is, like, so very smart, he could write a BETTER and MORE BEAUTIFUL Constitution . . . .
1
I’m not convinced that he knows how to read.
3
1. Can he still read?
2. If so, does he still comprehend?
6
Or maybe, juuuust maybe, he could try and do something useful.
Like, I don't know...helping curb global warming. Deleting Twitter. Raising taxes on the mega rich.
Buuuuut noooooo. He has to try and use his pwer to protect his thin, ashey, skin.
#Oprah2020
8
Our constitution guarantees freedom of the press, and our founders, with rare exceptions (John Adams, for one), put up with egregious press license in outrageous ideological attacks. The balance never was on the side of fairness. Most Americans always have accepted the imbalance as necessary to protect the ability to call power to accountability, if not necessary to truth; and some were simply entertained by the excess.
But let’s admit to ourselves that protections ARE unbalanced. Where there is a basic unfairness, where one interest is protected at the expense of all others, then what shields that unfairness constantly is at risk. It doesn’t help that where there is imbalance, there always is some abuse – read supermarket tabloids and patent bomb-throwers, such as Breitbart under Steve Bannon.
This truly could be a watershed moment for America, because Trump’s got a case.
But we’ve had other moments when a different decision was taken. In the depths of the Great Depression, when fascism was spreading globally, Americans made it clear to FDR that they would support his becoming a dictator if that was what he needed to rebuild our economy and the destroyed lives of millions. He reflected and chose not to go that route: he took another direction; and because he did, we remained America.
It would be a mistake for Trump to seek to destroy press freedoms. While there currently is abuse, the counterpoint would make its own kind of abuse inevitable, and that would be worse.
30
According to the Media Law Resource Center, in 30 years, Trump and his companies have filed thousands of lawsuits and sent countless cease-and-desist letters to journalists and critics. And how many speech-related cases has he won that were filed in a public court? Zero.
Last week, Trump and his lawyers showed that they don't seem to understand that the Supreme Court has prohibited prior restraint. Today, Trump demonstrated that he doesn't realize that the best defense against the charge of libel is, well, the truth.
If he wants to proceed with a lawsuit and subject himself to discovery in order to prove his strong "case," he should go right ahead.
41
NA:
Your diatribes are becoming as predictable as a fortune cookie. Here's another: "Hatred is a poor marinade in which to simmer".
1
Your lame responses to substantive rebuttal are just that. Lame. And unfunny.
15
Be patient. The time is approaching. Trump, his minions and his Republican enablers are going to get what they so richly deserve. I just hope there are enough prison cells available.
71
I could agree but add should the plaintiff (Trump) lose on grounds of frivolous law suit the plaintiff (Trump) should be charged compensatory damages paid to the defendant equal to the defendants legal expenses and punitive damages up to two times the legal fees incurred by both legal teams. Seems fair to dissuade deep pockets from posturing in the legal system any time they get called out for lying, cheating, showing unethical behavior or simply acting with disregard for other human beings. The lawyers will love this clause as both sides get paid.
13
This from the man for whom objective sources have documented a 70% falsehood rating, as well a lie-rate of 1 for every 1.5 minutes of speaking, when providing what he believes to be relevant information influencing administration policy. We know Trump has attempted to smear honorable judges, war heroes, artists, athletes and those who should be allies in government and political service. A lifetime spent getting bailed out of his own illegalities by threatening to sue or by declaring bankruptcy was only marginal successful, and is proving to be downright dangerous when applied as a model for governing what once was a democracy.
197
2100 lies or falsehoods have come forth from Trumpland which includes his clueless press secretary. Oh, oh. Was that libel and/or defamation, or the truth?
The the truth, so to speak, is what emanates from Trumpland.
Maybe they should go over the 1st Amendment with him again, and review what "public figure" means. Use pictures if needed.
96
Another ignorant, meaningless pronouncement from a charlatan, who fears a free press, and would, if allowed, imprison his political adversaries. Never mind that state libel laws and Supreme Court precedent exist to protect the press and the public from the likes of Trump.
39
Defamation law is state law, not federal law. Not much the federal government can do about it. So let him “look” as much as he likes.
14
Trump’s blatant hypocrisy in regards to honesty during public statement makes me wonder how frequently he actually commits libel or slander. He repeatedly refers to news organizations he does not like as “fake news”. Those organizations have published methodology and evidence based reporting. They are by definition not fake news. Falsely stating a restaurant is selling fake beef could clearly cause them financial harm. That would be grounds for a libel case. Why don’t news organizations bring a libel case against the president when he falsely accuses them of selling fake news?
10
The man who calls people names, lies about them constantly, and generally has no respect for the existing libel laws wants to make them tougher? He should be careful what he wishes for.
310
Remember now is is a self made stable genius.
And makes most of such comments with 'actual malice'.
Going after the press is right out of the dictator handbook.
At what point can we legitimately refer to the Trump administration as a regime?
At what point does fascist-like become actual fascism?
16
If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.
10
The more he threatens to sue, the more plausible the accusations become.
17
“False and defamatory” ... like claiming a sitting president was born in Kenya not Hawaii?
99
As a lawyer who practices defamation law (both for plaintiffs and defendants), I am bemused, or would be were it not for all the other crazy stuff he's said. For the record, first, there is meaningful recourse in the courts when one has been defamed. Second, the First Amendment is not going anywhere. And, third, individual causes of action for defamation are state-created torts, so, each state has a different set of laws. I wonder if his proposed "strong look" contemplates reading all those state laws. Anyway, wasn't he saying something about a Kenyan-born Muslim?
511
He doesn't read and those tomes have no pictures :)
2
Let's hope he has his reading glasses with him this time.
He is also the genius who claims he forgot his glasses when confronted with documents in depositions and hearings, complains simultaneously of small print and many pages, then stares angrily at the page as if that will grow his magic glasses that make him highly literate.
He once bragged in such a case that although he'd only read a few of the type of document he was being asked to read (but couldn't because glasses) but how many had he signed "Hundreds. Hundreds"
1
Three very good reasons to dismiss this as the deranged ranting of a semi-coherent adolescent.
2
“We are going to take a strong look at our country’s libel laws, so that when somebody says something that is false and defamatory about someone, that person will have meaningful recourse in our courts,”
Meaningful recourse against Trump's lies would impoverish him in quick order. His projections are legendary.
25
Better headline: Trump Attacks the First Amendment, Again.
Trumpy is a public figure so the standard for him or someone like him to prevail in a libel or defamation lawsuit is quite high, as it should be. If you are in the public eye by choice you can't complain when people report about you. Who knew 45 was so thin skinned.
10
The President can take as "strong" a look as he wants at defamation law. It's Times vs. Sullivan, where the Supreme Court decided that public figures have very limited protections except for actual malice. It stinks to be rich and famous, but in America people can say and write almost anything they want about you and "fairness" is not a consideration.
Oh, and by the way, stop whining.
17
Bet Trump didn't release those "letters" from the TV networks. Like the Comey tapes and his charitable contributions and soon the results of his physical. All secret. Just bluster.
Anyone ever seen HIS birth certificate? He's a lot older than he's saying . . . Our nation's drunk uncle!
10
Be careful what you wish for Mr. President. You could be sued by Ted Cruz for implying that his father was connected with the Kennedy assassination. Your favorite newspaper, The National Inquirer, as well as Fox News could be threatened with multiple suits for false reporting. In fact, you and your media backers would be the most vulnerable.
12
If this hypocrite has so much time to spend planning ways to pay back those who didn't vote for him, don't agree with him, and call him out on his dishonesy - including lawsuits meant to intimidate, bankrupt, and inconvenience - then I see absolutely NO reason why lawsuits cannot be filed against him, no matter what his title.
Biggest hypocrite ever. Sad.
10
Maybe they can go over the 1st Amendment with him again, and review what "public figure" means. Use Bold print. 1st Amendment isn't just for him, sorry.
8
By the time the Justice Department and the judiciary are done with Trump, the news media will be his least problem.
7
More of the same: Accuse the other side (in this case, the press) of the stuff you do all of the time. In this daily instance, being dishonest without any accountability. Of course, freedom of the press, and Constitution, and lack of presidential powers in these areas means that unless Congress changes the constitution, "looking at this" means nothing. Not only that, I imagine this approach would even alienate some of the precious base, such as those folks with libertarian leanings. So silly. Can't help himself, can't thicken that skin, can't stop blabbing, can't stop attacking, can't stop lying. Lot going on there.
7
"Cant say things that are false" says Birther King Donald who "lies like a dog" in Trump vernacular.
The Obamas could live forever if they dumped a totally deserved libel suit on the guy who clocks in at several unnecessary and pathological lies EVERY day.
10
A spoiled, petulant child trapped in an old man’s body says what!?
14
Sigh . . . would someone please explain to this genius-in-chief the standards that apply to public figures in defamation cases?? Maybe draw a stick-figure picture or something? Just suggesting . . . .
11
Perhaps Trump should take a "strong look" at moving to the Philippines and join his friend Rodrigo Duterte who has drug addicts murdered extrajudicially, torture is legal, enemies of the state are jailed and this Trump will love - journalists disappear and are murdered.
8
DJT is right about one thing, He WOULD be in danger if libel laws were loosened; he's in danger right now or should be. How much slander and harassment by this amoral and irresponsible individual and the equally misogynistic and increasingly ugly Republican party must Hillary Clinton tolerate? What recourse does she or anyone else who has been maligned by these repugnant factions have?
10
Will the new libel law include the libel committed by the president??
5
This coming from a guy who lies and defames people more than anybody in America. What a joke. Lock him up! Lock him up!
10
“We want fairness,” the president said. “Can’t say things that are false, knowingly false, and be able to smile as money pours into your bank account.”
Hey, Dumb Donald, you may want to re-think that statement, given all the things YOU'VE said & done that are provably & knowingly false, but which left YOU smiling as other people's money poured into your bank accounts!
17
Hmmm...wonder what DT was thinking when he was slandering Obama with his "birther movement"?
10
I guess he's not worried Obama will sue for claiming he wasn't an American by birth. With the numerous things this"man" has said about people he should keep his mouth shut.
6
You have just more than 1 year, President Trump. When the blue wave hits, protection from your treasonous partners in Congress will be gone. Do you really want to be be fighting the first amendment in that remaining time?
10
He cares about nothing but himself. Sad!
7
If Trump wants to improve his press coverage he should simply stop saying or tweeting stupid things and stop doing outrageous stuff. Just like that, he would get better press because they're just reporting what he says and does, not "fake" news. Otherwise his constant threats against the mainstream press are positively chilling because if I had to choose between a free press and Donald Trump as to what is most important for our country, I'll take a free press hands down. DT himself is just a demagogue.
6
Oh golly President Trump, would you though? Your scorched earth approach has endeared you to the 70% who want you gone as soon as possible. A move like this one will definitely bring them back to your side.
6
Please do and Im sure you will be the first to be sued. Don't believe I have heard a word of truth ever pass through your lips!
7
Sorry, Dear Leader. The First Amendment trumps the wannabe autocrat.
11
Of course I doubt this would apply to the slanderous lies he spreads every day. Not to mention slandering Barack Obama repeatedly in the past with blatant lies and falsehoods over his citizenship.
If HE'S on the receiving end though, oh, well then of course it MUST be different. Despite the fact there's nothing libelous in the Wolff publication.
8
I believe trump is lying about any news network (other than Fox Fake News) sending him a letter of congratulation regarding the lies he was spewing during his meeting with congressmen on Tuesday, January 9, 2017.
8
This from the man that rode to power on the deliberate lie that Barack Obama was not born in the United States!
11
Then who will take 45 to court on his false, defamatory statements about Obama's place of birth?
8
Trump: ". . . so that when somebody says something that is false and defamatory about someone . . ."
"Says"? We are talking about libel, Mr. Trump. That refers to printing, publishing, books, etc.
And in terms of slander, Mr. Trump, your campaign and first year in (can we call it) office shows you to be certainly the slanderer-in-chief.
59
Unfortunately for this dimwit, what he does not know is that he cannot change the law. Congress can, and court action can, but he cannot just issue an order that the libel laws be changed.
Also, since he's spent the last many years slandering all of his enemies, which include a lot of the people who have worked for him, and a lot of random celebrities, he probably also fails to realize that there would be thousands of lawsuits filed against him if he were to loosen up those libel laws.
In any case, the Resident is just blathering and lying at the top of his lungs, this has nothing to do with anything that will actually happen.
79
I don't trust this Republican congress not to try to assault the First Amendment. Moreover only four more states are needed to call a federal constitutional convention. Ostensibly, the convention would be about a balanced budget amendment to the US Constitution, but a constitutional convention could rewrite whatever it wanted in the Constitution.
3
The overexposuring nature of American cable media gave rise to Trumpism. You reap what you sow. Hypocrisy and anti-constitutionalism at its best!
10
"We are going to take a strong look at our country’s libel laws... ." Trump's Promise du Jour.
Can't wait until tomorrow's Promise du Jour.
16
As the old saying goes, "Be careful what you wish for . . . ." As someone well known for his prevarications, he is not in a safe space when it comes to revising the libel laws.
17
Thank you for making it clear that this is, again, just a bunch of hot air from DT. How do you 'loosen up' a set of laws that ultimately protect the truth?
14
When Trump talks about "fairness" what he really means is he doesn't want to be criticized, period. What a thin-skinned fool and strongman wannabe with little understanding of the Constitution.
26
Trump taking a "strong look" at libel laws? I guess the irony escapes him.
27
He'll have plenty of time when he's behind bars.
17
Does Trump realize that claiming — among scores of other scurrilous lies — that Senator Cruz's father had a role in the JFK assassination constitutes libel? Probably not.
31
Oh ,Lord, please do change the libel laws. All women would be able to sue the President. Breitbart would not exist. Judge Moore & Arpio would be in jail. Yup,for it. Can a President serve from prison is a question Trump needs to ask his lawyers. Oh , Steve Bannon thought mentioning Trump & money laundering would be a Trojan horse . Can you imagine if Trump Org. had to make transparent were money's came from ?
20
Trump can dish it out but he can't take it. He'd be the first to get brought up on Libel and Slander charges.
22
News organizations and publishers have nothing to fear from Trump as he is nothing more than a paper tiger. The only reason why Trump wants to rewrite libel laws is to cow them into not reporting his dishonesty.
Trump said
Mexico will pay for the wall - NOPE
I'll have a great health plan to replace Obamacare - NOPE
Trump is a proven liar.
22
So Trump wants to modify the libel laws to make it easier to take legal action "when somebody says something that is false and defamatory." Excellent idea -- let's start by going after the demagogic numbskull who for years peddled (and apparently still believes) the blatant falsehood that President Obama was not born in the United States. Lock him up!
26
Would it be libelous to claim that somebody wasn't born in the USA, when they clearly were?
34
Not only does he think he's above the law, he believes he has the power to change it. Delusional despot.
34
You can take my libel laws and First Amendment protections when you can pry them from my warm, living fingers.
15
All the laws should be changed. Just for him. NOT!
8
Mr. Trump should be careful what he wishes for.
He may be opening the door for 'Crooked Hillary," "Lyin' Ted," and a host of other people he has maligned to have their day in court on HIS dime.
328
He is king, so he will insert a protection for himself and the royal family. You really think he hasn’t thought this through?
1
Change those laws, Donnie, but watch out for the double-edged sword the back stroke.
35
Given his inability, or lack of desire, to discern facts from alternative facts (lies) - he would be in big trouble if libel laws were changed.
22
Considering the voluminous reporting that President Trump won't actually read anything longer than a few bullet points on a single page, I'm wondering what "taking a strong look" at libel laws actually entails?
91
My guess is he only likes hearing himself sound "important".
5
"In reality..." seems like the most cast aside way to begin any commentary about Trump.
13
A sitting US president wants to dismantle the First Amendment, which was written explicitly to protect a free press after the Revolutionary War. If that isn't treason, what is?
315
The First Amendment protects the governed, not those who govern, according to the Supreme Court. Trump would call it the "So-called Supreme Court."
1
Translation:
"The only person allowed to criticize the media is Trump."
"The media is bad every time it publishes something critical of Trump."
"ANY criticism of Trump should be criminalized, because Trump can do no wrong!"
Someone needs to tell the President that a Free Press is Directly Enshrined in the US Constitution... the same Constitution that he swore to uphold and protect. Every time he directly attacks the Press or threatens it, he is violating his Oath of Office.
Yet another example of the indefensible behavior that Trump attempts to normalize. With every passing day, Trump behaves more like Putin, and becomes less worthy of the High Office he was entrusted with.
177
When he placed one hand on the Bible and raised the other to swear to allegiance to the Constitution, he had only an inkling of what is written in either and does not care to learn more.
2
Demonstrating yet again that he has no clue about the powers of the President, the workings of our government, or the contents of the Constitution....
160
Did the Founding Fathers intend for the Executive Branch of government to be this powerful or whimsical?
11
Did Trump forget about that pesky First Amendment?
18
You can't forget what you never learned.
(There is SO MUCH he can't forget.)
10
He forgot the words to the anthem the other night, so yes, it's possible.
1
Story goes that Trump's eyes glazed while an aide tried to acquaint him with the US Constitution - we now know it happened before they got to that pesky First Amendment.
21
He had better be careful what he wishes for. More lenient libel laws could allow other public figures to sue rich people who defamed them also. Right off the top of my head I can think of a certain billionaire who might have a hard time defending himself against any defamation lawsuits filed by celebrities ranging from Megan Kelly to Barack Obama to Jeb Bush to John McCain to Ted Cruz ....
358
I'm thinking he might not want people looking into his controversies to determine whether what people say about him is, in fact, true.
2
Or Rosanne Barr!
Trump to the press: That's a nice little First Amendment you've got there. It'd be a shame if something should happen to it....
26
If Trump was actually able to change libel law, the number of lawsuits against him for defamations and false accusations would be HUGE!
27
I guess for Mr. Trump the Bill of Rights starts at the number two.
16
Good luck, Mr. Trump, but I don't think they've published a coloring book with those laws.
17
I imagine Trump will be the first person to get sued if he gets the laws changed, considering all the people he's libeled! They're probably all lining up right now.
44
So, supposedly thick skinned manly men business moguls need laws to protect their image and feelings? That makes sense.
19
Does this president and administration have nothing better to do? Why not a session for him and Huckabee on the common law elements of defamation, followed by a reading of the law regarding public figures as set out in NY Times v. Sullivan. Finish it up with the late Anthony Lewis's marvelous little book (that will satisfy anyone with a short attention span, short chapters, different cases) Freedom for the Thought That We Hate (Basic Books)
10
Nothing surprising here. Trump has to attack the press in order to protect himself from being exposed as the liar and fraud he clearly is. But watch what the Republicans do, or rather, fail to do when he attempts to muzzle the press through the JoD. And also watch how his propaganda outlet, Fox News, amplifies his attacks and supports his narrative that he is the innocent victim of the liberal media. The Russians aren't the only people who are eager to collude with Trump.
34
Would those laws apply to statements by a sitting US president?
19
Perhaps our president, and one of the most prolific libelers on Twitter and a frequent slanderer, will ultimately get caught up in his efforts to encourage frivolous lawsuits and limiting free speech should he succeed in changing the law.
18
Trump said, “Can’t say things that are false, knowingly false, and be able to smile as money pours into your bank account."
Really?? Doesn't that describe Trump's entire business record and his MO as "president?"
89
In saying that he seems to be projecting his own "strategy"....combined with the erratic temper of a businessman who is used to getting his way at all costs..... screaming "you're fired" ,(a phrase he tried to copyright I read), does not work so well in the WH. Business is very different then governing. Trump is used to be the king of his own castle, a castle that his father provided...Trump is not a self made man by any means. He is the 21st century version of "The Ugly American". Crude, rude, boorish and uncultured. I am embarrassed by him and his supporters.
2
Sounds like a good idea. If "fake" can be litigated maybe we can discredit such charges by getting the evidence out in the open. Suing is not the same as winning.
2
Many lawyers will know this area way more than me, but as a public figure, Trump can't win a libel or defamation case without meeting the standards set out by the Supreme Court in NYT v. Sullivan. He can't just "take a strong look" at libel laws and upend long standing legal precedent. Once again, Trump needs a civics lesson on the separation of powers, as well as a lesson on our Constitution, which protects the freedom of speech and freedom of the press, even when exercising those freedoms makes Trump mad.
16
Sloppy Donny continues to show his deeply anti-democratic, deeply authoritarian beliefs. It's baffling to me why his base, as supposed patriotic Americans, would continue to support this deeply, obviously, anti-American person. At this point I think it's safe to say they won't be changing this support. It's up to the rest of us to fight for freedom and democracy to save our great country.
17
"If Trump doesn't win in three years, they're all out of business"
...what does this even mean? Does Trump think the news didn't exist before him?
Trying to follow the pathology makes my well-educated brain hurt.
22
Wouldn't you need to have character to be able to claim it was harmed?
11
Carl Bernstein pointed out that Mr. Trump is like Richard Nixon in " ... trying to divide the country, and make the conduct of the press the issue, instead of the conduct of the president ... ” (NYTimes, 17Feb2017) And we know how it ended with Mr. Nixon.
14
This is what tyrants do, they label anything or anyone that has an opposing point of view, either "fake" or they try and discredit. But that like many of the gimmicks that the GOP used to bend the rules, or outright change them, will prove to be a double edged sword, it will cut both ways.
Trump, and the GOP need to understand that they are treading on thin ice, trying to change liable laws will put the administration in court for violating the first amendment. it may also wind up putting Trumps favorite supporter who owns that solid news source "The National Enquirer" out of business. That rag continues to print bold face lies, and is insulated by the first amendment. Liable laws would also put Trump in the line of fire since he routinely violates liable laws.
7
The President has no authority over libel law. So he can “take a look” all he wants but the only federal libel law at present is a limitation on libel law: the First Amendment, which the President cannot alter.
7
If he really wants to represent American values and fairness, he should "take a strong look" at the 2016 election outcome and resign.
8
Trump is being impeded in his genius rule by the first amendment.
5
The first step towards fascism is to control the press. Don the Con is trying to move in that direction. Good luck with that, as we have a little something called the Constitution. But then, there are too many words in that document to read all the way through and actually comprehend.
13
If Mr Trump is serious with these comments, it should also be possible to hold him accountable for the many libelous, false and slanderous statements he has made during both his election campaign and during his presidency. Equality of law!
14
Here again Trump's pure hatred for any person or organization who said any negatives about him leads him to attack our libel laws. After all, he can't sue CNN, MSNBC, the NYT and the Washington Post to name a few. But he must hit back and so he will force a libel law change for his benefit. These proposed changes are for him; not for most of us who believe in a free press and free speech. With such a change, he could sue people who publish books he doesn't like, ask questions he doesn't like and and sue all of Hollywood. Now he is on the right track. Sue them all.
6
Boy for somebody who claims he has nothing to hide he sure does not act like an incent.
"Look at what they do, not what they say"
14
Trump's ignorance is again on display. Presidents don't make or change laws, legislatures do. There is no federal libel law; libel is a state law issue. The only federal law applicable is the limitations on libel suits imposed by the First Amendment.
15
Wonderful! I look forward to the first case - Obama suing Trump for claiming that he wasn't born in the United States. $100M damages, at the least.
27
What about people who post false information about others on Twitter? Does he feel as strongly about creating new laws to make it easier to sue individuals posting falsehoods on Twitter?
10
A Hitlerian moment for Don
Dictatorship thus entered on,
With complacent judges
Without winks or nudges
A path he'd love to tread upon!
He played his reality scene
65 minutes, was serene,
Mistweets are forgiven
Of sins he is shriven,
But hardly has discarded mean!
30
Trump rode to power on the hateful rhetoric and lies peddled by third-rate media outlets. He is the essence of libelous. The hypocrisy is despicable. He is such a fascist wannabe.
468
What we need are more laws in place to make it easier for everyday citizens to take legal action against the president for outright lying!
22
He is fascist, not merely a fascist wannabe.