One of the principles of Natural law is that everyone must be accountable for their actions. This includes the press. If immunity from prosecution and/or civil suit is granted to the press, it removes any possibility of holding the individual’s in the press accountable for their actions. The story about the alleged connections between Trump and the Russians is an excellent illustration of why individuals must be allowed to sue the press.
Before I make my case, let me make something perfectly clear: I am not a Trump supporter. I believe there is little real difference between him and his agenda and that of the Obama Administration, and that what differences there are have less to do with where they want to take the country and more about how they plan to take us there. Now, with that said, allow me to explain why granting the press immunity is counter…
View original post 1,262 more words
9 thoughts on “PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL LAW: TRUMP-RUSSIA ALLEGATIONS ILLUSTRATES WHY PEOPLE MUST BE ALLOWED TO SUE THE PRESS”
Lawsuits are judicial branch actions.
Requiring the press to be subjected to the judicial branch is a violation of the 1st Amendment.
As usual, you bring up a great point and offer thoughtful argument.
But in a free society, the credibility of press must find its source in the hearts and minds of The People and their representatives.
It is right and just that THE Donald, the voice of THE People, is laying very public waste to the press.
He is doing so with rhetoric (verbal persuasion) not the might of the judicial branch of government.
No, it is not a violation of the 1st Amendment. We know this because the founders — the men who wrote and ratified the first amendment — originally allowed the press to be sued. But more than that, if you exempt them from being held responsible for their actions, you do not make the press ‘free:’ you turn them into an enemy of Liberty.
Additionally, I think you missed the main thrust of my argument. You are focusing on criminal law. I did not. I aimed my case at civil law, which is very different. So long as the press printed truth they could support, they would be totally immune no matter what they printed. They would only be vulnerable when they acted irresponsibly. To excuse them from the need to be accountable is the negation of justice, and the negation of justice is the negation of liberty.
What is to stop a future Barack Obama from suing Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity off the airways under the pretext that they transmit lies and false news?
The 1st Amendment protects free political speech whether it is true or not.
What you are advocating is the demolition of the American Republic and the installation of tyranny.
Nothing, because they already can!!! But then, this is the key. If someone advertises themselves as OPINION, or as an EDITORIAL, then they are not really ‘the Press.’ This is because they are not presenting news, they are arguing an opinion.
Where you are stumbling is over the definition of ‘the Press’ and ‘libel.’ I can offer a false opinion all I want, and so long as I make it clear that I am stating an opinion, then there really isn’t any way to show tangible harm. However, if I knowingly present a lie as ‘fact,’ and people act on it, then I HAVE caused tangible harm — to both the people who acted on that lie and the person at whom it was aimed.
As for the notion that I am trying to destroy the Republic: I would offer that this has already been done — and granting immunity to lawless people because they call themselves ‘the press’ is part of how it happened!
Keep in mind: knowingly and willingly advocating a lie to affect political change is a violation of the Social Contract in itself. It is no different than if I lied to you in the process of negotiating a contract. It is just the public version of what would privately be known as fraud. So, if you are going to excuse fraud on the part of ‘the press,’ why not excuse it in the private world as well? And once you do that, you — not I — have destroyed the Republic…because you have made two sets of rules: one for you, and one for me.
Are you aware that, while the Constitution does grant limited immunity to members of Congress while traveling to and from session, it does not give them a blanket immunity? Nor does it grant a blanket immunity to the President. He can still be impeached. So, how is it that we can allow our government officials to be prosecuted but not the members of the press?
Well, there’s an answer to that question, and it can be traced back directly to the Progressives in the latter part of the 19th and early 20th Centuries. To the Progressive, the press is a weapon, as are the bureaucracies. Therefore, it is no accident that they have been granted immunity, as are most members of our school system. One does not allow prosecution of ones REAL political organs. If you do, then it is too easy to destroy those organs. But, if you grant them immunity, then you have granted immunity to your entire political apparatus. This is what the Progressives built, and those who know where to look will find the plan explained by American Progressives, Communists, Hitler and Mussolini and even Socialists in modern France. And THAT is why Natural Law does not allow immunity to anyone: because immunity to anyone is an attack on the liberty and security of all.
The Constitution is aimed at limiting the power of government. So it is no surprise that government representatives are not granted any kind of blanket immunity.
If the force of government is aimed at any area of the free press, it can be aimed at all areas of the free press.
Again, purpose of the Constitution is to limit the power of government, not the power of the press.
It is therefore unconstitutional for the government to commit legal assault on the press.
Individuals who are harmed by press liable can and do sue for justice in court.
Once again, and as clearly as possible:
A Citizen is NOT “the government.”
I have not been arguing to allow the Government — State or Federal — to sue the press. I am saying that INDIVIDUALS must be allowed to sue for damages. Otherwise, you have granted anyone who calls themselves ‘the press’ a license to destroy anyone and anything they wish without consequence. That is the very definition of lawlessness, and the founders never intended that, nor does the Constitution allow it. Those who have perverted the Constitution did that.
People have successfully sued the press in fact right ? For slander and false accusations. So that would fit with what you are saying.
Yes. The immunity came from the courts, when they started with the lie that public figures could not sue. A public figure still retains their rights — especially in a Republic supposedly founded upon the protection of individual rights 🙂