Get ready for an unpressidented violation of the First Amendment under Trump...

[Rollo]

Trump Promises Harsh Media Criticism of Him Will Be ILLEGAL If He’s President

Have you ever made fun of Donald Trump? Have you ever read an editorial that really lays into him with criticisms of his proposed policies, or even his hair?

Well if Trump becomes president, he promises that things will change, and these sorts of critiques will no longer be legal. It almost sounds like satire, but during a speech in Texas on Friday morning, the Republican candidate and frontrunner, Donald Trump said he wants to sue news outlets if they negative stories about him....

“One of the things I’m gonna do, and this is only gonna make it tougher for me, and I’ve never said this before, but one of the things I’m gonna do if I win… is I’m gonna open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We’re gonna open up those libel laws.”

He went even further and made it clear what he meant, saying, “We’re gonna open up those libel laws, folks, and we’re gonna have people sue you like you never get sued before.”

Can he do it? Will the GOP Congress meekly go along with this unpressidented violation of the First Amendment?

What do you think?

[sharp_stick]

1. Absolutely unconstitutional

Even Clarence Thomas wouldn't stand for it.

[Achilleaze]

6. Oh yes he would. Clarence is a Republican.

'nuf said.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

14. Nope. Even Fat Tony Scalia was almost a First Amendment absolutist.

How do you think Citizens United got decided?

[elleng]

2. It IS satire, No, he can't do it,

and neither can Congress. First Amendment is in the CONSTITUTION, and has been interpreted by the Supreme Court over many years.

He/they may be adding to bank accounts of lawyers, if they play games with the First Amendment.

'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.'

[Rollo]

3. Yes, but he can try...

... and waste billions of tax payer money in the process...

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. Congress can't do a damn thing about it.

The First Amendment protects even very harsh criticism of public figures, and even the current Supreme Court has been very protective of the First Amendment. Even if the GOP-controlled Congress were to try to pass more restrictive defamation laws they'd be quickly challenged and found unconstitutional - remember, it's the courts, not Congress, that get to decide what is constitutional and what isn't.

As a public figure (typically, politicians, celebrities, and others who have intentionally sought public recognition), Trump has little recourse against media criticism, since court decisions like New York Times v. Sullivan have held that a public figure can't recover for defamation unless the publication of the allegedly defamatory statement was made with "actual malice" - that is, with the knowledge the statement was false or with reckless disregard for its falsity. (The First Amendment also protects statements of opinion, so if you say that you think Donald Trump is a repulsive orange wanker with the morals of a jackal, you're safe.)

So: If a newspaper publishes an article stating as a matter of fact that Trump has tertiary syphilis as a result of having group sex with Putin and Kim Jong-Un, that would be a libelous statement (unless, of course, it's true, which would be an absolute defense) - but only assuming the newspaper published the statement with the knowledge it was false, or else without bothering to determine whether or not it was. In such a situation Trump, even as a public figure, could probably win the case. The problem with suing for defamation, though, is that it usually draws even more attention to the alleged libel. That's why most celebrities don't bother to sue the supermarket tabloids for their blatantly false statements.

I'd love to see Trump sue some big media outfit. He'd get his ugly orange ass handed to him.

[Rollo]

8. All true, but...

The Trump AG could just conduct the biggest SLAP campaign in history, harassing the press (and bloggers) with strategic lawsuits that cost the average citizen far more than one can afford.

It will be his way of instituting his third world class dictatorship, where any criticism of the person of Dear Leader is a federal offense...

Orangina is crazy and vindictive enough to do it, too.

[onenote]

10. That isn't the role of the AG.

If anyone would bring such a suit it would be the counsel to the president. And it's not going to happen.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

12. The AG couldn't do that - the Attorney General represents the government

and not the president individually. A defamation claim is based on an alleged injury to an individual's reputation; therefore a president's libel suit would have to be brought by the president as an individual. He'd have to hire a private attorney, and he'd be hard-pressed to find one who'd take the case. There is a rule in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 11, that makes attorneys and/or their clients liable for the other side's attorneys' fees and costs for bringing an action in bad faith (one that has no basis in established law). I really doubt any lawyer would touch a case like that.

[moondust]

5. If Turkey can do it...

Cafeteria manager jailed for insulting Turkish president, lawyer says

Article 301 is an article of the Turkish Penal Code making it illegal to insult Turkey, the Turkish nation, or Turkish government institutions.

[Rollo]

9. Yup

[onenote]

11. Sorry, but just because Turkey or some other country can do something

doesn't mean it can and will happen here. As pointed out, even this supreme court has been protective of the first amendment.

[moondust]

15. Do you know for a fact

that the GOP does not have some legislation up its sleeve to circumvent the first amendment, similar to Article 301 in Turkey, that they believe they can pass with control of all three branches of government? I'm not ruling anything out.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

17. They CAN'T circumvent the Constitution BECAUSE IT'S THE CONSTITUTION!

The Constitution is the controlling law of the United States. Any legislation passed by Congress has to comply with it. There is no way to "circumvent" it.

Jeesh, didn't anybody study civics in high school?

[moondust]

19. What about this...

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Somehow a piece of that bit of the Constitution keeps being overlooked or forgotten or dismissed as irrelevant or...wait for it...CIRCUMVENTED! Funny how that works.

Jeesh, naive and arrogant much?

Oh yeah and there's this: Money is speech protected by the First Amendment.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

20. The Second Amendment has been interpreted in the Heller case as including

an individual right to keep and bear arms. I might not agree with that interpretation but I'm not the Supreme Court. They get to decide and I don't. Same with Citizens United. The Supreme Court decides what the Constitution means.

[moondust]

22. Exactly.

And if the Supreme Court includes enough partisan hacks they could do a lot of damage as they have in the past.

[Rollo]

31. I wonder how...

...Chief Justice Nugent would rule...

[moondust]

32. Perish the thought.

[onenote]

26. You may not like that money is speech, but you should be thankful that it is

Otherwise the government could shut down DU by passing a law barring contributions to DU.

[moondust]

30. Simply because

it contains political content? To my knowledge DU is not a PAC, 527, or other political organ that exists to pump money into and thereby influence political campaigns, legislation, and policymaking. As such I think the First Amendment would probably still protect DU even if money was rightly recognized as property--a commodity--rather than speech. But I'm no lawyer so...

[onenote]

25. I'm willing to say that I know for a fact that they don't have legislation like 301 in Turkey

that can be enacted by Congress and upheld in the courts.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

13. We don't have any laws like that. And if Congress managed to pass one,

it would never see the light of day because it would be instantly invalidated as violating the Constitution.

[Glassunion]

7. Ok, this is from almost a year ago.

Also, what libel laws exactly would he be opening up?

[brooklynite]

16. He talks a big game, but he's not up to the threat

First, he doesn't have the right to "open up libel laws"; let's wait and see what willingness Congress had to actually change existing Statures.

Second, civil lawsuits don't bring the same right to refuse to testify. How many lawsuits will Trump be willing to take timeof from the White House.

Third, most media isin NYC and Washington. How likely are jury pools going to be to support Trump's allegation?

[Eleanors38]

18. Just more bung-blowing cock-strut.

[lpbk2713]

21. His I AM THE BOSS approach will cause serious problems.

There's no doubt about it. He is the worst possible person to take any political office.

[world wide wally]

23. Who's going to complain?

Our courageous press?

[X_Digger]

24. Oh for fuck's sake

I swear, there should be a $500 tax credit for taking and passing an online civics exam.

Topics to include the bill of rights, the source of rights, the separation of powers, and the enlightenment philosophy.

No, the answer is no.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

27. Seems to be a lot of confusion about how the whole thing works...

[True_Blue]

33. Americans are about to get a 4 year civics lesson

On checks and balances.

[Takket]

28. Hillary just called. She wants to know if that is retroactive lol

[unblock]

29. anyone who thinks they can't doesn't appreciate the lengths to which they will go.

sure, they can't just come out an do something flagrantly unconstitutional and have the courts overturn decades if not centuries of case law.

but of course that's not what they'll do. they'll carve out a "limited" and/or "temporary" restriction. they'll come up with some legal theory that the courts haven't specifically ruled on before.

and the circumstances will not be "normal" circumstances. we will have our reichstag fire and toxic trump will declare war on grenn meanies or something. *then* they will restrict free speech, arguing that the war with green meanies compels them to monitor and restrict free speech.

and a 5-4 court will agree with them.


this is not far-fetched, nor is it unprecedented. remember how protesters are sometimes held in "free speech" pens, often quite far away from the speech or rally they're protesting? not on the same scale, of course, but still, it's a restriction on the first amendment that's really just for the political convenience of politicians who don't want protesters to take away their own air time.