Even before his presidency, Trump has expressed distaste toward the media. For example, he’s made no hesitation to criticize various newspaper companies. He referred to them as incompetent and dishonest. In addition, For example, during February of 2016, Trump claimed he would create Libel laws if he won the presidency. Trump explained libel laws would make it easier to sue organizations that purposefully defaced his character. Libel laws would create stricter criteria that the media would have to follow.
Trump’s libel laws would make it easier to sue organizations. If Trumps libel laws were to go into effect, the prosecutor wouldn’t have to provide evidence of harm that came from the item that contained libellous information. Additionally, …show more content…
The first amendment expresses Congress is unable to restrict one’s freedom of speech. Trump wishes to restrict what people are able to say in the media,and the opposition feels that by doing so Trump is abridging their rights. Furthermore, they argue the case New York Times vs Sullivan further backed up their argument. The case concluded that evidence would be required in order to sue for libel. According to the case, there had to be evidence of malicious intent. The case defined malice as knowledge the information was false or posting said information without verifying the credibility of it. Essentially the case emphasized the media has the right to write freely as long as what they’re writing isn’t considered …show more content…
Various media experts felt that it was important to continue writing about the lies Trump has spread. The experts felt Trump’s presidency shouldn’t have the power to stop them from reporting honestly. These experts felt reporting the news honestly and freely were significant components of a democracy. Additionally, they realized reporting was necessary because if they didn’t misinformation could spread. Misinformation would be able to create false conspiracies without evidence to back it up. They also felt these lies would be able dominate the media if nothing was done about them. By speaking out against the president, opponents felt that they were doing their job as a journalists and upholding their rights. Tump himself claimed that libel laws would make it easier to sue news organizations. He claimed suing organizations would, “win them lots of money,” which expresses a motive for supporters (Schoenfeld.) Having more lenient libel laws would make it easier for people to sue companies. Due to the fact it’ll be harder to defend against libel, it is possible people will abuse their power in order to gain a profit. It is possible these libel laws would cause journalists to refrain from speaking what is on their minds because they don’t want to risk getting
Trump’s libel laws would make it easier to sue organizations. If Trumps libel laws were to go into effect, the prosecutor wouldn’t have to provide evidence of harm that came from the item that contained libellous information. Additionally, …show more content…
The first amendment expresses Congress is unable to restrict one’s freedom of speech. Trump wishes to restrict what people are able to say in the media,and the opposition feels that by doing so Trump is abridging their rights. Furthermore, they argue the case New York Times vs Sullivan further backed up their argument. The case concluded that evidence would be required in order to sue for libel. According to the case, there had to be evidence of malicious intent. The case defined malice as knowledge the information was false or posting said information without verifying the credibility of it. Essentially the case emphasized the media has the right to write freely as long as what they’re writing isn’t considered …show more content…
Various media experts felt that it was important to continue writing about the lies Trump has spread. The experts felt Trump’s presidency shouldn’t have the power to stop them from reporting honestly. These experts felt reporting the news honestly and freely were significant components of a democracy. Additionally, they realized reporting was necessary because if they didn’t misinformation could spread. Misinformation would be able to create false conspiracies without evidence to back it up. They also felt these lies would be able dominate the media if nothing was done about them. By speaking out against the president, opponents felt that they were doing their job as a journalists and upholding their rights. Tump himself claimed that libel laws would make it easier to sue news organizations. He claimed suing organizations would, “win them lots of money,” which expresses a motive for supporters (Schoenfeld.) Having more lenient libel laws would make it easier for people to sue companies. Due to the fact it’ll be harder to defend against libel, it is possible people will abuse their power in order to gain a profit. It is possible these libel laws would cause journalists to refrain from speaking what is on their minds because they don’t want to risk getting