Only Trump speech matters: Kirsten Powers

[GMDino]

(Opinion piece)

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/08/16/free-speech-trump-first-amendment-black-lives-matter-fox-news-kirsten-powers/88827274/

Quote:Donald Trump has a curious understanding of what freedom of speech means. His most recent head-scratcher involves a claim that writing unflattering newspaper stories about him is not protected speech.

Following a lengthy Sunday New York Times piece detailing dysfunction in Trumpland, The Donald tweeted, “It is not ‘freedom of the press’ when newspapers and others are allowed to say and write whatever they want even if it is completely false!”

Ken White, a First Amendment lawyer, told me: “Trump's complaint is misleading…Political arguments, characterizations, opinions based on disclosed facts, and interpretations can't be ‘false’ for First Amendment purposes.”

Trump may not like the fact that 20-plus anonymous sources provided the New York Times with an unflattering portrait of his campaign, but that doesn’t make it “false.”  Of course, Trump had no problem with news outlets running with his made-up claimin 2011 that Barack Obama “doesn't have a birth certificate. He may have one, but there's something on that, maybe religion, maybe it says he is a Muslim.”

Meanwhile, Trump believes official action should be taken against media when they anger him. In September, National Review editor Rich Lowry quipped that Carly Fiorina “cut [Trump’s] balls off with the precision of a surgeon” at the CNN debate. Trump tweeted furiously that Lowry “should not be allowed on TV and the FCC should fine him!” Of journalist Michelle Fields, who allegedly touched Trump’s arm while asking questions, he tweeted, “Why is she allowed to grab me and shout questions? Can I press charges?”

Trump loves free speech only when he or his supporters are speaking. When Trump postponed a March campaign event due to throngs of protestors he told Sean Hannity, “I think this not a good group  —  really spiteful of First Amendment rights.” He also complained to Greta Van Susteren that his First Amendment rights had been violated.
[/url]

USA TODAY

Protesters can’t violate First Amendment rights. Only the government can do that. Moreover, whether a group is “good” or “bad” is irrelevant in determining whether a constitutional violation has occurred.

But don’t tell Donald Trump that. He seems to be keeping a “naughty or nice” list. Last week he told the Christian Broadcasting Network that he was going to work to repeal the Johnson Amendment, which prohibits non-profit charitable organizations from engaging in political activity. Why? “Free speech is being taken away from people that are great people,” Trump told an interviewer. “From people that are saying good things, not bad things.”

The “great people” saying “good things” in this case are Trump supporting conservative Christian pastors who want to be able to take tax-deductible donations and also influence elections. Trump has portrayed the Johnson amendment as an attack on religious institutions, when it actually applies to all non-profit charitable organizations.

USA TODAY

People saying “bad things” can expect different treatment from a President Trump. We know he’s promised to [url=http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/02/donald-trump-libel-laws-219866]“open up” libel laws so he can punish the “dishonest media.”

He also pledged in an interview with Bill O’Reilly to have his Attorney General investigate Black Lives Matter, should he become president.  Why? “Because [they are doing] really bad stuff and it's happened more than once,” he told O’Reilly.  In an interview earlier this month, Trump told me he was referring to claims that a handful of BLM protesters chanted, “Dead cops now.” This allegation has been debunked.

But even if it were true, it would be unusual for a president to take official action regarding a single chant — no matter how noxious — at a single event in the United States. Bad speech is actually protected, unless, says Ken White, it is “directed at causing and likely to cause imminent lawless action.” This is a high bar, and not one the claims in this instance would likely meet. Nonetheless, Trump reiterated to me that he would have his AG investigate an activist group he dislikes.

This is what free speech would look like in Trump’s America.

Kirsten Powers, author of The Silencing: How the Left is Killing Free Speech, writes often for USA TODAY.

[McC]

It's obvious he won't win. But the lib's are so ****** up and loony, they can't even sit back and enjoy another win. Apparently, they are worried that his level of crazy is higher than their level of crazy and it is bugging the shit out of them.

Get back to me the next time ten percent of the promises a candidate makes ever comes to pass. Hillary's the same. None of her wacky ideas will ever happen. Her free college education plan is no less loopy than his wall in front of Mexico.

So, lib's, relax, sit back, revel in the fact your candidate is one percent better than the worst candidate who ever lived. He's not even trying to win and it will still take everything she has to beat him.

[BmorePat87]

(08-16-2016, 05:23 PM)McC Wrote: It's obvious he won't win.  But the lib's are so ***** up and loony, they can't even sit back and enjoy another win.  Apparently, they are worried that his level of crazy is higher than their level of crazy and it is bugging the shit out of them.

Get back to me the next time ten percent of the promises a candidate makes ever comes to pass.  Hillary's the same.  None of her wacky ideas will ever happen.  Her free college education plan is no less loopy than his wall in front of Mexico.

So, lib's, relax, sit back, revel in the fact your candidate is one percent better than the worst candidate who ever lived.  He's not even trying to win and it will still take everything she has to beat him.

She's at the point where she's polling double digits ahead of him in some national polls. He's resorting to just claiming everything (media, process, polls, and election) are or will be rigged so that he can claim he didn't truly lose. 

[JustWinBaby]

I heard a great theory....from a cab driver....said Trump doesn't want to win the election, but he's using this as a springboard to launch a cable news network.

[Rotobeast]

(08-16-2016, 06:32 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I heard a great theory....from a cab driver....said Trump doesn't want to win the election, but he's using this as a springboard to launch a cable news network.

That's pretty interesting.
It makes a lot of sense, given the direction he's taken.

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[fredtoast]

(08-16-2016, 05:23 PM)McC Wrote: It's obvious he won't win.  But the lib's are so ***** up and loony, they can't even sit back and enjoy another win.  Apparently, they are worried that his level of crazy is higher than their level of crazy and it is bugging the shit out of them.

Get back to me the next time ten percent of the promises a candidate makes ever comes to pass.  Hillary's the same.  None of her wacky ideas will ever happen.  Her free college education plan is no less loopy than his wall in front of Mexico.

So, lib's, relax, sit back, revel in the fact your candidate is one percent better than the worst candidate who ever lived.  He's not even trying to win and it will still take everything she has to beat him.

Oooh.  Someone is a little sensitive about losing...







again.

[*PhilHos*]

Quote:Following a lengthy Sunday New York Times piece detailing dysfunction in Trumpland, The Donald tweeted, “It is not ‘freedom of the press’ when newspapers and others are allowed to say and write whatever they want even if it is completely false!”

He's right, though ...

















































... to an extent. Just sayin'.

[*bfine32*]

We can never have enough Trump threads.

[GMDino]

(08-16-2016, 08:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: We can never have enough Trump threads.

Glad you agree.  Thanks for the support.

Any thoughts on the topic?

[Rotobeast]

(08-16-2016, 08:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: We can never have enough Trump threads.

It's like glitter.
It spreads everywhere and you can never seem to fully rid yourself of it.

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[McC]

(08-16-2016, 08:06 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Oooh.  Someone is a little sensitive about losing...







again.

Oh, boy.  Four years of the Republican Congress blocking everything the Democratic President tries to do.  We're all winners.

All she has to do is keep her big mouth shut and coast home with the win.  But that ain't in her DNA.  She's literally only one percent less crazy than him.

[BmorePat87]

(08-16-2016, 08:13 PM)PhilHos Wrote: He's right, though ...


... to an extent. Just sayin'.

In reference to the article he is complaining about, he isn't right, though. 

[*PhilHos*]

(08-16-2016, 09:59 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: In reference to the article he is complaining about, he isn't right, though. 

I wouldn't know as I didn't read the article he didn't like, but there is a thing called libel and slander and in THAT sense, he's right. 

Can you imagine if Trump is THAT sore of a loser that if he were to lose the presidency, he then initiated a whole bunch of libel/slander suits against newspapers and cable news networks and journalists, etc? I'm not saying he has or doesn't have valid claims, just putting forth what I think would be an interesting and probably a weirdly entertaining thought.

[BmorePat87]

(08-17-2016, 12:12 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I wouldn't know as I didn't read the article he didn't like, but there is a thing called libel and slander and in THAT sense, he's right. 

Can you imagine if Trump is THAT sore of a loser that if he were to lose the presidency, he then initiated a whole bunch of libel/slander suits against newspapers and cable news networks and journalists, etc? I'm not saying he has or doesn't have valid claims, just putting forth what I think would be an interesting and probably a weirdly entertaining thought.

I'm sure his lawyers would advise him against that considering political opinions are protected as part of freedom of the press and are not libel.

[*PhilHos*]

(08-17-2016, 12:20 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I'm sure his lawyers would advise him against that considering political opinions are protected as part of freedom of the press and are not libel.

Soooooooooooooooooo, Trump is NOT as insane and crazy and stupid as you and almost everyone else has tried to claim?

[GMDino]

(08-17-2016, 12:27 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Soooooooooooooooooo, Trump is NOT as insane and crazy and stupid as you and almost everyone else has tried to claim?

What leads you to that conclusion?

[*PhilHos*]

(08-17-2016, 12:29 PM)GMDino Wrote: What leads you to that conclusion?

A:

(08-17-2016, 12:20 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I'm sure his lawyers would advise him against that considering political opinions are protected as part of freedom of the press and are not libel.

[GMDino]

(08-17-2016, 12:34 PM)PhilHos Wrote: A:

That doesn't mean Trump isn't crazy.  That means that someone would probably tell him he was crazy.

As we have seen that doesn't mean he won't attempt, or say, crazy things.

[*PhilHos*]

(08-17-2016, 12:41 PM)GMDino Wrote: That doesn't mean Trump isn't crazy.  That means that someone would probably tell him he was crazy.

As we have seen that doesn't mean he won't attempt, or say, crazy things.

Hey, I don't necessarily disagree with you, but Bmore does.

[GMDino]

(08-17-2016, 12:44 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Hey, I don't necessarily disagree with you, but Bmore does.

Again, I'm not sure I follow your logic.

Pat said Trump was wrong about the article he referenced and also thinks his lawyers would advise him from doing something "crazy".

I don't think that equals Pat not thinking Trump is crazy.