Should Everyone Be Held Accountable for Libel Laws?

[Azrael]

NYT v. Sullivan: Will the Landmark Defamation Ruling Survive?

 

[Deskgrunt50]

The question was, should a post like that get someone thrown into jail or sued? It certainly appears that some folks here think it should, without an iota of self awareness that whatever the party in power happens to be at the moment would be the ones deciding what is "true" and what is "false."

I know what the question is. And I think it should be an incredibly high standard to meet. What I'm saying is that you don't actually care about it. As much as you scream and cry about "liberals" you support the people who are actually trying to do it.

 

[dixiehack]

Jesus Christ. I really don't like the way Batman voted either but 1) he's actually willing to talk through things unlike a YF-caliber troll or a zombie Facebook meemaw and B) at first glance I agree with him that this is a terrible time to contemplate knocking out even more of the load-bearing walls holding up what's left of the republic.

 

[FileNotFound]

Jesus Christ. I really don't like the way Batman voted either but 1) he's actually willing to talk through things unlike a YF-caliber troll or a zombie Facebook meemaw and B) at first glance I agree with him that this is a terrible time to contemplate knocking out even more of the load-bearing walls holding up what's left of the republic.

This is spot-on and needs to be amplified. @Batman is a challenge for those of us who want to snap-hate Trump supporters, because I can see from his writing that he -- unlike so many people -- is coming from a place of integrity. I don't agree with his ballot, and I've explained in other posts why it's personal to me. But that doesn't mean that every darn thing he says is wrong. That kind of discourse is straight out of the Trumpublican playbook, and that's a trap into which we must not fall.

 

[Azrael]

I'll take the contra here, sort of.

Is the greatest threat to US libel law some click farmer from Belarus?

Or is it a US president who's been loudly and proudly vocal about "opening up" US libel law almost from the moment he rode down that brash-plated escalator?

https://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/02/donald-trump-libel-laws-219866

https://legal-forum.uchicago.edu/pr...libel-law-time-fake-news-and-enemies-american

https://legal-forum.uchicago.edu/pr...libel-law-time-fake-news-and-enemies-american

The greatest threat to Sullivan - and to free speech and the press and the 1st Amendment - is Donald Trump.

So I'm not sure 'self-awareness' is the card to play here.

 

[Deskgrunt50]

B) at first glance I agree with him that this is a terrible time to contemplate knocking out even more of the load-bearing walls holding up what's left of the republic.

This is my issue. I also tend to agree with Batman's argument. But ending press freedom and libel protection is a stated goal of this administration. So it's a darn hollow argument coming from anyone who voted for that.

The press under a viscous attack. It's already dominated by the sycophantic hard-right and dishonest trump-supporting outlets. The biggest social media platforms are owned by trump supporters who amplify his message. And the so-called "liberal" outlets have fallen in line and paid extortion money to trump via frivolous lawsuits they would have easily won.

Anyone can argue anything they want. But don't wrap yourself in a flag of virtuous ideals when the one action you can take to preserve those things is the direct opposite of what you claim to believe in.

 

[swingline]

No matter what you think of @Batman, he did give us the Vin Scully story, so there's that.

 

[Deskgrunt50]

I'll take the contra here, sort of.

Is the greatest threat to US libel law some click farmer from Belarus?

Or is it a US president who's been loudly and proudly vocal about "opening up" US libel law almost from the moment he rode down that brash-plated escalator?

https://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/02/donald-trump-libel-laws-219866

https://legal-forum.uchicago.edu/pr...libel-law-time-fake-news-and-enemies-american

https://legal-forum.uchicago.edu/pr...libel-law-time-fake-news-and-enemies-american

The greatest threat to Sullivan - and to free speech and the press and the 1st Amendment - is Donald Trump.

So I'm not sure 'self-awareness' is the card to play here.

This is far more concise as to what I'm trying to convey.

And on top of trump wanting to end press freedom, he's also wiping ash with the First Amendment as he threatens to arrest protesters and fire anyone from a government job who doesn't pledge absolute loyalty.

 

[Deskgrunt50]

This is spot-on and needs to be amplified. @Batman That kind of discourse is straight out of the Trumpublican playbook, and that's a trap into which we must not fall.

Bothside-ism and failing to push back on shameless hypocrisy is a trap we've already fallen into (twice) and are now paying dearly for.

I know there aren't many of us here who are still in the business. But it's Journalism 101 stuff. And I've stop trying to understand people who vote against their interests on any issue, especially journalism.

 

[Batman]

This is my issue. I also tend to agree with Batman's argument. But ending press freedom and libel protection is a stated goal of this administration. So it's a darn hollow argument coming from anyone who voted for that.

The press under a viscous attack. It's already dominated by the sycophantic hard-right and dishonest trump-supporting outlets. The biggest social media platforms are owned by trump supporters who amplify his message. And the so-called "liberal" outlets have fallen in line and paid extortion money to trump via frivolous lawsuits they would have easily won.

Anyone can argue anything they want. But don't wrap yourself in a flag of virtuous ideals when the one action you can take to preserve those things is the direct opposite of what you claim to believe in.

The previous administration created the "Disinformation Governance Board" and only disbanded it when its existence came to light and enough people were upset about it. It also used NGOs to serve as middlemen to directly influence social media companies about what content to allow or throttle back on its website.
I don't agree with everything the Trump administration is doing in this area. Its stance toward the AP, for example, seems stupid, petty and near-sighted, to put it mildly. But I also know what was done and attempted the past few years and find that just as frightening, if not moreso, because those plans were actually put into action.

 

[FileNotFound]

I mean, maybe the solution is to simply stop accepting misinformation. I had the choice to not buy the Weekly World News or the National Enquirer back in the day. I now have a choice to not use Facebook and Xwitter as my primary news sources. The River of Bullship has flowed for centuries, and I don't think it's the government's responsibility to build a dam; it's my responsibility to not jump into it.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

What Trump and his alternate facts pals don't realize is that making libel/slander lawsuits easier to pursue is going to hit their own right-wing shriek machine friends just as hard, if not harder.

How many Alex Jones wannabes are going to pull flat-out lies out of their ashes if they know they could get sued?

This is how dumb Trump and his pals are. They're benefitting from strict libel/slander laws.