• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Trump's Opposition to Freedom of the Press...

Kori

Dark Valkyrie...what's not to love?
And who will decide if it's true and how much truth is the truth? All I see coming from this if someone makes and error, an honest mistake, then that will open up Pandora's Box. The thing about news being given to you is that not all the details are not known right away. Does a reported have talk for two minutes telling you oave and over that "This is still the early stages." or "We have confirmation but it's still early." To a degree they do that now but it will get much worse with this non-sense.
 

Attachments

  • journalism_is_not_a_crime_by_thebluerainwolf-d896u2s.jpg
    journalism_is_not_a_crime_by_thebluerainwolf-d896u2s.jpg
    1.1 MB · Views: 41

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
And who will decide if it's true and how much truth is the truth? All I see coming from this if someone makes and error, an honest mistake, then that will open up Pandora's Box. The thing about news being given to you is that not all the details are not known right away.
This is something the courts already address.
The change he proposes is vague.
The main problem I see....how would damages be determined?
 

Kori

Dark Valkyrie...what's not to love?
This is something the courts already address.
The change he proposes is vague.
The main problem I see....how would damages be determined?

Keep in mind there are idiot judges.
Yeah it's vague and that's even worse.
Mostly money but if someone can get other things they will.
 

Kori

Dark Valkyrie...what's not to love?
The press have ruined many lives all around the world, so I am for suing the backside of them.

The press makes mistakes. Yes that does ruin people. And yes the press does make some people into targets for personal reasons. However those problems can be dealt with mostly from outside forces like condemnation on their own websites or youtube videos. The internet is the most powerful weapon a civilian can wield, anonymous for example, but the freakin weeaboos and troll armies make a effective counter cyber army hard to form and rouse.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
[Source]

The source is an opinion piece that directly quotes Trump and provides video documentation of its quotes.

Seems like Trump isn't much for Freedom of the Press -- and by extension, Free Speech. Does anyone believe he can "open up the libel laws" to allow lawsuits "like you never get sued before" without that shutting down the core freedoms of the press and speech in this country? If so, what is your reasoning?
sounds like to me.....
he expects the press to be held accountable for the rhetoric they publish.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
yeah.....

and if elected....I don't expect very many press conferences
You think The Donald would shun the limelight once elected?
<snicker>
I'd expect them to be frequent, sans teleprompter, & face palmworthy.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
You think The Donald would shun the limelight once elected?
<snicker>
I'd expect them to be frequent, sans teleprompter, & face palmworthy.
oh yeah.....
he deals with it now because it's part of the deal at hand.

I doubt he will be patient once in office
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I note this quote in the story.....
"write purposely negative stories … we can sue them and make lots of money”
The ellipses indicate to me that some text was removed.
This quote sounds like it was lifted from the video that I posted earlier.
In that clip, the additional language created a different meaning from the above quote.
It had to be not just negative, but also "false".

I dislike much about Trump too.
But if we are to dislike, we should do so for accurate reasons,
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I can understand Trump's anger at the press, given all the fallacious quotes attributed to him.
Today, on NPR, some of the 'news' was about how to defeat Trump.
Why would defeating him be news, but not defeating Democratic candidates?
(Btw, I don't think they're deliberately plotting against him.
It's just that this is their perspective, ie, that pols they favor are good, & pols they dislike are bad.
And this colors their coverage.)
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
[Source]

The source is an opinion piece that directly quotes Trump and provides video documentation of its quotes.

Seems like Trump isn't much for Freedom of the Press -- and by extension, Free Speech. Does anyone believe he can "open up the libel laws" to allow lawsuits "like you never get sued before" without that shutting down the core freedoms of the press and speech in this country? If so, what is your reasoning?

I wasn't able to pull enough details out of the article to tell whether Trump is asking for what's already in bounds in terms of free speech or whether he's trying to move the goalposts... are there any specifics? This is an area where there are some fairly accurately defined boundaries.
 
[Source]

The source is an opinion piece that directly quotes Trump and provides video documentation of its quotes.

Seems like Trump isn't much for Freedom of the Press -- and by extension, Free Speech. Does anyone believe he can "open up the libel laws" to allow lawsuits "like you never get sued before" without that shutting down the core freedoms of the press and speech in this country? If so, what is your reasoning?
I happened to see this press conference when it was playing live on CNN. What shocked me the most was the way the crowd cheered after he said we're going to sue them like they've never been sued before, and make a lot of money. This was just a tangential rant about a personal vendetta having little or nothing to do with politics, except by coincidence. When did this become an issue for the Republicans? It isn't, it's just another symptom that Trump will say anything and do anything to his own advantage, and his supporters will cheer for it as long as Trump says it loud and confidently. Forget the question of libel law and how/whether it should be reformed - the motivation for Trump even mentioning the topic and the crowd's reaction is symptomatic of fascism, whether there's a grain of truth to what he said or not.
 
Top