The Republican Primary Race Is Filling Up

[ArcadiaGP]

One, that's a mischaracterization of what he actually said/what his position is. Two, even if true, how is filing a civil lawsuit an example of fascism?

The one about opening up the libel laws and hit-pieces rings a bell, but it's not possible Donald ever said those words, is it? You can't possibly have video of it, it must be special effects / photoshop / audio cuts all edited. Don't trust GPIA7R's posts, they're all lies!

Silencing political opposition through lawsuits (or threats thereof) isn't fascism? What is it then, I'm not so well versed on all the nuances of the -isms.

What's the goal of such a suit? To stop what's being done. In most, if not all of these cases, they were quoting Trump word for word.

Shutting down free press or free speech, through threats of financial ruin... is not pro-1A.

 

[chipbennett]

What's the goal of such a suit? To stop what's being done. In most, if not all of these cases, they were quoting Trump word for word.

Shutting down free press or free speech, through threats of financial ruin... is not pro-1A.

Libel is not a lawful exercise of first amendment-protected rights.

 

[voidsherpa]

oh, just a random example: using unlawful force and threats of violence to prevent someone from conducting a lawful political assembly.

Didn't ya hear? They were asking for it apparently, holding a rally in Chicago.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Libel is not a lawful exercise of first amendment-protected rights.

'a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.'

Looking at my post, his threats were against people using his own words against him. Showing his history of being against something he's suddenly for. That's not libel.

He has a history of SLAPP suits, wherein the lawsuit itself is the punishment. It's anti-1A on intimidation. He has the power to do it, and normies like you and I can't fight against it.

Dissent is free speech, and he's against it.

 

[chipbennett]

'a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.'

Looking at my post, his threats were against people using his own words against him. Showing his history of being against something he's suddenly for. That's not libel.

He has a history of SLAPP suits, wherein the lawsuit itself is the punishment. It's anti-1A on intimidation. He has the power to do it, and normies like you and I can't fight against it.

Again: can you cite a source where Trump says that's what he's talking about?

Everything I've found indicates that he's referring only to the "malice standard" defined by SCOTUS per Sullivan v NY Times. I haven't seen anything about him addressing the other components of libel, including proving that a statement is false, and proving that a statement is damaging to one's reputation.

Dissent is free speech, and he's against it.

As you've said. But where are Trump's own words saying so?

 

[danimal]

You are conflating libel (not a lawful exercise of rights) with political opposition (a lawful exercise of rights). And lawsuits do not silence the speech in either case, because speech cannot be subjected to prior restraint.

Fascist tactics of silencing political speech would include... oh, just a random example: using unlawful force and threats of violence to prevent someone from conducting a lawful political assembly.

EDIT:

Yes, please cite and quote Trump's actual words, demonstrating that he is in favor of silencing political opposition.

[video]http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/02/donald-trump-libel-laws-219866[/video]

The best quotes are in the last paragraph

But I do have an honest question, when Donald liken Dr. Carson to a child molester, was it libel, or protected speech?

 

[T.Lex]

Again: can you cite a source where Trump says that's what he's talking about?

Everything I've found indicates that he's referring only to the "malice standard" defined by SCOTUS per Sullivan v NY Times. I haven't seen anything about him addressing the other components of libel, including proving that a statement is false, and proving that a statement is damaging to one's reputation.



As you've said. But where are Trump's own words saying so?

Donald Trump on libel laws: We're going to 'open' them up - POLITICO

"One of the things I'm going to do if I win, and I hope we do and we're certainly leading. I'm going to 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 going to open up those libel laws. So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they're totally protected," Trump said.

Not a single mention of "malice."

We (and news entities) have the freedom to be negative and horrible and wrong... and to write hit pieces.

Plus, as you note, SCOTUS has already determined what the standard is for public figures. Curious how he plans on "opening up" that standard. I guess he never talks about that. What he might change it into.

Except it will make him lots of money and make people say nice things about him. Totally not fascist. Which, by the way, he would probably want to sue me for saying.

 

[chipbennett]

[video]http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/02/donald-trump-libel-laws-219866[/video]

The best quotes are in the last paragraph

I don't think you understood the question. This quote doesn't say anything at all about silencing political opposition:

"You see, with me, they're not protected, because I'm not like other people but I'm not taking money. I'm not taking their money," Trump said on Friday. "We're going to open up libel laws, and we're going to have people sue you like you've never got sued before."

But I do have an honest question, when Donald liken Dr. Carson to a child molester, was it libel, or protected speech?

Cite/quote? Here, I'll do your work for you:

"It's in the book that he's got a pathological temper," Trump told "Erin Burnett OutFront," speaking about Carson's autobiography. "That's a big problem because you don't cure that ... as an example: child molesting. You don't cure these people. You don't cure a child molester. There's no cure for it. Pathological, there's no cure for that."

In his 1990 autobiography, "Gifted Hands," Carson attributes violent behavior in his youth to his "disease," a "pathological temper" that the Republican presidential hopeful said caused him to strike one friend with a rock and attempt to stab another. In subsequent accounts of his violent youth, Carson said he once attempted to attack his mother with a hammer.



Clearly not libel. And your characterization of this quote as Trump likening Carson to a child molester is demonstrably false.

 

[T.Lex]

And even more recent:
Trump on Changing Libel Laws: They Make It Hard to Win | Mediaite

TRUMP: If somebody writes falsely about a person, you should be able to sue.
KURZT: You can sue, you can sue tomorrow.
TRUMP: But you can’t win. You know, I could sue, but you can’t win. The laws are set up so you can’t win.

​

I take him at his word on this. (Nod to Tombs.) As President, he would work to create a defamation standard that was strictly based on falsity. Regardless of position, it depends on whether the statement is false.

So, let's say I think Trump is a fascist and call him that. He doesn't think he's a fascist, so he sues me. We spend lots of money - and he would have WAY more of it than me - to decide whether he is fascist. All the while, he's using the power of the presidency to be fascist.

That's a bad idea.

 

[chipbennett]

Donald Trump on libel laws: We're going to 'open' them up - POLITICO


Not a single mention of "malice."

So, tell me: how is Trump's position here materially different from current libel laws?

I'm going to 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.

The only difference is the need to prove malice.

We (and news entities) have the freedom to be negative and horrible and wrong... and to write hit pieces.

So, you are opposed to all libel laws, then?

Plus, as you note, SCOTUS has already determined what the standard is for public figures. Curious how he plans on "opening up" that standard. I guess he never talks about that. What he might change it into.

The malice standard.

Except it will make him lots of money and make people say nice things about him. Totally not fascist. Which, by the way, he would probably want to sue me for saying.

How would it "make people say nice things about him"? How is that not a wholly illogical conclusion?

 

[chipbennett]

And even more recent:
Trump on Changing Libel Laws: They Make It Hard to Win | Mediaite



I take him at his word on this. (Nod to Tombs.) As President, he would work to create a defamation standard that was strictly based on falsity. Regardless of position, it depends on whether the statement is false.

So, let's say I think Trump is a fascist and call him that. He doesn't think he's a fascist, so he sues me. We spend lots of money - and he would have WAY more of it than me - to decide whether he is fascist. All the while, he's using the power of the presidency to be fascist.

That's a bad idea.

The reason he couldn't win today is because of the malice standard (which, by the way, as far as I'm aware, only applies to public figures). And there's nothing about that quote that excludes any particular element of current libel law. You're "taking him at his word", but you're also putting words in his mouth.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Again: can you cite a source where Trump says that's what he's talking about?

My post this is all in reference to was about his fascist actions against free speech. Those actions include his desire to "open up" libel laws, and his history of SLAPP lawsuits to shut down the little people.

From wanting to "close down" parts of the internet (which included his mocking of "free speech") to what he's said on libel ("So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they’re totally protected.")

Do you take his comments to exclusively pertain to speech that isn't protected? I see someone that wants control and power... and "opening up" laws to give him more power over things like 1A don't sit right.

He dragged reporter Tim O’Brien through years of litigation over a relatively favorable Trump biography that assigned a lower valuation to his net worth than he thought it should have.
Donald Trump & Tim O'Brien -- A Courtroom Story

He sued the Chicago Tribune’s architecture critic over a piece arguing that a planned Trump skyscraper in lower Manhattan would be “one of the silliest things” that could be built in the city
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3564080848777051432&q=paul+gapp&hl=en&as_sdt=6,31

He used the threat of litigation to get an investment firm to fire an analyst who correctly predicted that the Taj Mahal casino would not be a financial success.
Donald Trump as Litigation Bully | Cato @ Liberty

He threatened to sue Rosie O'Donnel for mocking him
The Donald Trump-Rosie O'Donnell feud: A timeline - CNNPolitics.com

He threatened to sue Cruz for using his own positions against him. Trump calls them "lies", but they aren't if you pay any attention to his history. (at 1:53. He uses the birther basis, but the threat of lawsuit if Cruz didn't redact truthful campaign ads has the same effect.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAzw0ycf1yQ

He has a dubious understanding of how laws work:
Donald Trump wrong that New York Times can't be sued for a 'story that they know is false' | PolitiFact

 

[T.Lex]

So, tell me: how is Trump's position here materially different from current libel laws?

So, quick primer on libel/defamation: there are 2 kinds of people in this world (nod to jamil) public figures and not public figures. For public figures to win in that kind of case, they need to prove something extra - something beyond what not-public-figures need to prove. That thing is:

The only difference is the need to prove malice.

Exactly. This recognizes that speaking out about political figures is an important protection. The lack of that protection results in chilling of the right to speak out at all.

So, you are opposed to all libel laws, then?

Speaking of illogical conclusions, of course not. I think the current system strikes a good balance, when taking into account anti-SLAPP laws.

The malice standard.

... is what he wants to remove. Kinda crazy, eh?

Or, are you in favor of removing that standard?

How would it "make people say nice things about him"? How is that not a wholly illogical conclusion?

How many people/entities can afford to litigate every time they say something not-nice about him that he decides to sue over?

How can you frame it any other way? He wants to sue people and win when they say things he disagrees with. He is not content to sue them and lose.

The reason he couldn't win today is because of the malice standard (which, by the way, as far as I'm aware, only applies to public figures). And there's nothing about that quote that excludes any particular element of current libel law. You're "taking him at his word", but you're also putting words in his mouth.

Am not. The entirety of his responses on this omit "malice." I absolutely agree, he wants to get rid of that. That's the problem.

 

[chipbennett]

My post this is all in reference to was about his fascist actions against free speech. Those actions include his desire to "open up" libel laws, and his history of SLAPP lawsuits to shut down the little people.

From wanting to "close down" parts of the internet (which included his mocking of "free speech")

What is the context of what he's talking about there? The screencap appears to indicate that he's talking about terrorism. Without some context it is impossible to understand what he's suggesting.

...to what he's said on libel ("So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they’re totally protected.")

Do you take his comments to exclusively pertain to speech that isn't protected? I see someone that wants control and power... and "opening up" laws to give him more power over things like 1A don't sit right.

Every quote of his that I've found has clearly indicated non-protected speech.

He dragged reporter Tim O’Brien through years of litigation over a relatively favorable Trump biography that assigned a lower valuation to his net worth than he thought it should have.
Donald Trump & Tim O'Brien -- A Courtroom Story

He sued the Chicago Tribune’s architecture critic over a piece arguing that a planned Trump skyscraper in lower Manhattan would be “one of the silliest things” that could be built in the city
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3564080848777051432&q=paul+gapp&hl=en&as_sdt=6,31

He used the threat of litigation to get an investment firm to fire an analyst who correctly predicted that the Taj Mahal casino would not be a financial success.
Donald Trump as Litigation Bully | Cato @ Liberty

He threatened to sue Rosie O'Donnel for mocking him
The Donald Trump-Rosie O'Donnell feud: A timeline - CNNPolitics.com

He threatened to sue Cruz for using his own positions against him. Trump calls them "lies", but they aren't if you pay any attention to his history. (at 1:53. He uses the birther basis, but the threat of lawsuit if Cruz didn't redact truthful campaign ads has the same effect.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAzw0ycf1yQ

Being lawsuit happy is not the same as being fascist. In order to file a lawsuit, speech must first be expressed. If speech is first expressed, it is by definition not suppressed.

He has a dubious understanding of how laws work:
Donald Trump wrong that New York Times can't be sued for a 'story that they know is false' | PolitiFact

 

[T.Lex]

What is the context of what he's talking about there? The screencap appears to indicate that he's talking about terrorism. Without some context it is impossible to understand what he's suggesting.

Patriot Act-style mission creep? If you can shut down one part, you can shut down any.

Every quote of his that I've found has clearly indicated non-protected speech.

I don't want this to sound condescending, but do you know what "protected speech" means? To Trump, it means objectively true, based on his statements. That is not the legal definition.

Being lawsuit happy is not the same as being fascist. In order to file a lawsuit, speech must first be expressed. If speech is first expressed, it is by definition not suppressed.

But the filing of lawsuits - or enforcement of laws as the chief of the executive branch - can suppress speech by and for people that can't afford to defend it. That's the implicit (sometimes explicit) purpose of the malice standard - to deter lawsuits against people exercising free speech.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Every quote of his that I've found has clearly indicated non-protected speech.

Being lawsuit happy is not the same as being fascist. In order to file a lawsuit, speech must first be expressed. If speech is first expressed, it is by definition not suppressed.

Does he or does he not file (or threaten) nonsense lawsuits (that he would lose) in order to stop speech that he does not like?

If yes: Do you agree with this behavior, and do you think wanting to expand this behavior is pro-1A or anti-1A?

If no: Do you think your position of defending Trump is, perhaps, keeping you from being critical on these sorts of suits?

Anyone can file a lawsuit for any reason. He can use them as a weapon because he has the money to do so, and intimidate those that do not.

 

[chipbennett]

Does he or does he not file (or threaten) nonsense lawsuits (that he would lose) in order to stop speech that he does not like?

False premise. You cannot stop speech with a lawsuit. To do so would be prior restraint.

If yes: Do you agree with this behavior, and do you think wanting to expand this behavior is pro-1A or anti-1A?

If no: Do you think your position of defending Trump is, perhaps, keeping you from being critical on these sorts of suits?

I'm not defending Trump. I am merely being critical of illogical accusations. And one can disagree with someone being lawsuit happy while also recognize that being lawsuit-happy and being fascist are two entirely different matters.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

False premise. You cannot stop speech with a lawsuit. To do so would be prior restraint.

I made an edit at the end that clarified this. You absolutely can hinder a person's message if you continue to threaten them with financial ruin for saying it.

I'm not defending Trump. I am merely being critical of illogical accusations.

Could've fooled anyone here.

And one can disagree with someone being lawsuit happy while also recognize that being lawsuit-happy and being fascist are two entirely different matters.

Back to my "if yes", then. Do you think this is pro-1A or anti-1A

 

[chipbennett]

Patriot Act-style mission creep? If you can shut down one part, you can shut down any.

Tell me what he means, first. Otherwise, debating the consequences of what he means is pointless.

I don't want this to sound condescending, but do you know what "protected speech" means? To Trump, it means objectively true, based on his statements. That is not the legal definition.

Those who keep asserting what Trump means continually conflate legal and colloquial definitions. An intentionally false statement that causes harm to the person about whom that statement is made is not protected speech.

But the filing of lawsuits - or enforcement of laws as the chief of the executive branch - can suppress speech by and for people that can't afford to defend it. That's the implicit (sometimes explicit) purpose of the malice standard - to deter lawsuits against people exercising free speech.

And it can also make a mockery of libel laws. Little Debbie declared George Zimmerman a "public person", and then threw out his defamation suit against NBC partly on the basis that Zimmerman could not prove malice, even though NBC intentionally edited recorded statements, and intentionally portrayed the edited statements in a manner to make Zimmerman appear to be racist, and then editorialized about Zimmerman's alleged racism on the basis of those edited comments, all in a manner that demonstrably harmed Zimmerman.

 

[BugI02]

That's not how I want my country run... People openly giving up their principles and values, selling out to a convincing con-man.

Just got back from voting for Trump in my primary. Funny, it didn't feel like I was bringing about the fall of western civilization. It felt good