So, NYT, when are you going to explain that it's not the LAWS that constrain libel suits by public figures, it's the CONSTITUTION, specifically the Times v. Sullivan 1965 SCOTUS case that made it difficult for any public figure to win a lawsuit? That was YOUR CASE!
-
-
-
Why are you practicing stenography journalism, simply regurgitating what people in power say without ever challenging their statements? Why don't you question what he means by 'look at libel laws? You know the libel laws, for gawdsakes. WHY AREN'T YOU EXPLAINING THEM?
-
I swear to gawd if I were still teaching journalism I'd be holding the NYT up as a perfect example of HOW NOT TO DO IT. Have you ppl forgotten Edward R. Murrow & how he stood up to 'he said, he said' McCarthy era journalism, demonstrating WHY those practices are bad journalism?
-
All you have to do is to interview a 1st/Amendment / libel law expert on the subject to clarify the intentional vagueness of the WH statements about 'looking into' libel laws. If the WH won't clarify it, then by gawd YOU DO IT.
-
Compare headlines & lede graphs on the same subject, 18 months. apart 6/3/2016 Donald Trump Could Threaten U.S. Rule of Law, Scholars Say 1/10/2018 Trump Renews Pledge to ‘Take a Strong Look’ at Libel Laws https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/04/us/politics/donald-trump-constitution-power.html?_r=0&mtrref=www.facebook.com&gwh=2E0EFABF78ED652E85E38CE63B7E8313&gwt=pay …pic.twitter.com/w7YcUXgOvz
-
What happened to you,
@nyt? The 2016 story 5 months ahead of the election is the kind of tough, hard-hitting journalism for which you are justly famous and lauded. The 2018 story is PABLUM by comparison. Two different reporters ADAM LIPTAK ['16] MICHAEL M. GRYNBAUM ['18]
-
But it shouldn't make that much difference. The 1st is in the grand tradition of The Gray Lady. The 2nd is Fox dressed up w/bigger words, longer sentences,&more grafs. The 1st gets to the heart of the threat to the free press trump poses. The 2nd normalizes that threatening talk
-
Do you not realize that in both cases trump is talking abt--in one way or another-- rescinding the landmark SCOTUS ruling in Times v. Sullivan? To do what the trump admin wants requires a constitutional amendment if SCOTUS won't cooperate. [W/Gorsuch on tap, who knows?]

- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Does Trump realize he’d be the first to be prosecuted if making knowingly false statements and accusations becomes criminalized? Read his statement and try not to see the irony. It’s impossible.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
“Can’t say things that are false, knowingly false, and be able to smile as money pours into your bank account." Yet that's pretty much what Trump does.pic.twitter.com/mrQFrYsVur
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Great news! That'll put Rupert Murdoch out of business. YAY!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Is he going to rewrite Supreme Court decisions? He thinks he’s a king.



















- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Such as Fox News, InfoWars, or Breitbert?
-
No wonder Fox ”News” is categorized as entertainment...
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
How about presidential candidates? Or reality TV showmen?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
For heaven's sake. Libel laws are state law. The President has no authority over them. Moreover, it is the judiciary that interprets the Free Speech Clause limits of those laws. So, just no.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.