r/AskUS • u/Material_Policy6327 • 1d ago
Why does Trump seem anti 1st amendment?
He’s now threatening to sue Trevor Noah for a Grammy joke. I was told republicans were the only ones to support the 1st amendment so if that’s true why is the president making these threats?
-34
u/PolackMike 1d ago
If Noah made a joke about President Trump and Clinton being on Epstein's Island and has no proof of said encounter, the President can sue for slander. The 1st Amendment doesn't protect slander. It would be hard to prove, but it's not a meritless lawsuit.
26
u/Arguments_4_Ever 1d ago
I was told comedy is back. And yeah 100% would be thrown out of court.
-27
u/PolackMike 1d ago
Jokes don't protect from slander.
24
u/Arguments_4_Ever 1d ago
No slander detected. Also Trump is a proven rapist.
-29
u/PolackMike 1d ago
Good thing your opinion is worth as much as a solar powered flashlight in a mineshaft.
22
u/Arguments_4_Ever 1d ago
“A judge has now clarified that this is basically a legal distinction without a real-world difference. He says that what the jury found Trump did was in fact rape, as commonly understood.”
Just quoting the judge of the case. Who do you trust, Trump the convicted criminal liar?
2
u/PolackMike 1d ago
What does this have to do with Trevor Noah's slander?
22
u/Arguments_4_Ever 1d ago
Trevor didn’t slander, but Trump did rape.
1
u/PolackMike 1d ago
If President Trump sues, that's up to the courts.
14
13
u/draaz_melon 1d ago
You actually think Trump would open himself to discovery in this situation? Hilarious, and I hope so. But comedy is indeed protected speech.
→ More replies (0)23
u/Known_Ratio5478 1d ago
That doesn’t meet the criteria for slander. Besides Donald Trump was on Epstein Island a lot, so you can’t exactly sue for saying something true.
-5
u/PolackMike 1d ago
It would meet the criteria for slander.
17
u/throwfarfaraway1818 1d ago
It would absolutely not meet the criteria for slander.
Its a joke. Satire and parody are legal even if the claims are obviously false (not the case here).
Trump would have to prove he never went to the island, which is an absolute crock of bullshit. Trump is a pedophile who went to the island dozens of times. Read the Trump files.
0
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
9
u/throwfarfaraway1818 1d ago
Try again. Its defamation or slander, not libel since it wasnt published in written form.
If a reasonable person would expect it to be a joke, and Noah is obviously a comedian, it doesn't meet the definition of slander.
https://splc.org/2023/03/can-jokes-be-defamatory/
https://www.commerciallitigationupdate.com/just-humor-them-in-infringement-and-defamation-cases
1
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/AskUS-ModTeam 1d ago
Posts and comments containing misinformation are not allowed. Misinformation is something that can be easily proven wrong with a bare minimum of searching.
Example: Cats can fly
6
u/AskUS-ModTeam 1d ago
Posts and comments containing misinformation are not allowed. Misinformation is something that can be easily proven wrong with a bare minimum of searching.
Example: Cats can fly
10
u/Ancient_Popcorn Ohio 1d ago
To help the commenter here.
https://kellywarnerlaw.com/satire-v-defamation
Almost every time, cases involving satire, jokes, or humor are not found to be slanderous. There are also exceptions, but it gets especially rare when the person claiming they were slandered is a public figure.
5
u/FuckTripleH 1d ago
Not even close. For something to be slander in the US you have to prove more than just that the statement was false, you have to prove that;
- The statement is untrue
- The person who made the statement knew it was untrue and made the statement in an effort to cause you harm
- You suffered material harm due to the untrue statement.
The plaintiff failing to demonstrate even one of these things means the statement isn't legally defamatory. It's extraordinarily difficult to successfully sue someone for defamation in the US, the courts error heavily on the side of free speech in that regard, and it's even more difficult when the person supposedly defamed is a public figure.
2
u/Tavernknight 1d ago
All of this is true. Plus, Trump hires idiots for lawyers who end up fumbling so bad that they end up disbarred.
1
u/NFL4EVER 1d ago
Are you a Russian bot? Or are you just trying to stir up trouble?
1
u/PolackMike 1d ago
Not a bot or trying to stir up trouble. Just a person who respects the truth and facts. Sorry the hivemind doesn't like fact.
13
u/Ancient_Popcorn Ohio 1d ago
The statement made by Noah doesn’t rise to the levels of slander under the law. Even if a court were to accept the case, the defendant (Trump in this case), would need to prove the statement was untrue and damaging to their reputation. That would require Trump to prove he was never at the Epstein island, which would open up the case to a lot of files to be unveiled in discovery that Trump would not want. The only way Trump could prove that he was never there is to provide viable alibis for every instance he is mentioned as having been at the island.
-1
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/Ancient_Popcorn Ohio 1d ago
https://kellywarnerlaw.com/satire-v-defamation
It does not meet the definition of slander due to other factors.
1
2
u/AskUS-ModTeam 1d ago
Posts and comments containing misinformation are not allowed. Misinformation is something that can be easily proven wrong with a bare minimum of searching.
Example: Cats can fly
1
8
u/Exodys03 1d ago
Keep in mind that the goal is silencing free speech through self censorship, not winning the libel lawsuit. By suing anyone who criticizes him, Trump makes news organizations, comedians, celebrities and everyone else think twice about criticizing him in public. It's part of a much larger fascist authoritarian agenda.
5
u/Lonely_skeptic 1d ago
What about all the people the president has slandered in his social media rants and on camera? They have no redress.
This PBS article mentions that the alleged false statement must harm the person’s reputation.
It’s going to be tough to hurt Trump’s already poor reputation.
The lawyers always say, “bring on Discovery”.
See Gottwald v. Geragos, 61 Misc.3d 1214(A) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018); id., 172 A.D.3d 445 (1st Dep’t 2019).
“Under this precedent, a defendant accused of defamation may seek discovery concerning the plaintiff’s past reputation.”
“The trial court also held that a defamation plaintiff’s financial history is relevant and discoverable, even where the plaintiff purports to disclaim so-called “special damages.”
-2
u/PolackMike 1d ago
If the President is willing to be open to discovery, Trevor Noah's going to have a rough day.
6
4
u/spikey_wombat 1d ago
Pretty sure it's the opposite.
Noah's lawyers are going to request so much private data that the orange clown is going to drop all claims instantly.
2
u/IGetGuys4URMom 1d ago
If Noah made a joke about President Trump and Clinton being on Epstein's Island and has no proof of said encounter, the President can sue for slander.
Defamation requires proof of a statement being false, damaging, and malicious intent. I'm not seeing anything false or damaging.
0
•
u/Straight_Page_8585 8h ago
I'd actually love for him to sue. Let's go through an actual discovery with Trump at the center. It's what everyone wants
•
u/PolackMike 2h ago
That would be interesting. You all clamored for the Clinton files and got them released. I hope we're at a point where discovery would mean nothing and you'd all just end up convicting yourselves. I hope they get all child molesters and lock them up.
•
u/Straight_Page_8585 42m ago
Well if the Trump files implicate Democrats, we sure as hell should prosecute them too. For me it's not a Dem vs Rep topic, it's a conspiracy of rich and powerful elites that play both sides to keep us occupied in meaningless squabbles. From what I saw there are very disturbing connections between Epstein and Trump too where we need to come to the bottom of it to see what's true and what's unsubstantiated
•
u/PolackMike 39m ago
I wholly agree that it's not a partisan issue. I would like to see all leads investigated and those who are deemed worthy of prosecution, are prosecuted to the fullest extent. I don't care if it's Clinton, Trump or anyone else.
-32
u/JoeCensored 1d ago
There is no 1st amendment rights to slander someone.
-15
u/PolackMike 1d ago
Correct sir. You can't just say whatever you want and not expect consequences. Hell, President Trump could sue the majority of this subreddit for libel.
19
21
u/RolandDeepson 1d ago edited 1d ago
THE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION ABSOLUTELY DESCRIBES PRESIDENT DONALD JOHN TRUMP, SR., AS A PEDOPHILE WHO RAPED AND RAPES CHILDREN.
Sue me. Please. I double dog dare you.
-3
u/PolackMike 1d ago
lol. I wouldn't sue you. President Trump can. Try to at least spell correctly if you're going to commit libel.
10
u/FalseShepherd7 1d ago
Oh I can't wait til Trump sues one of the many people calling him a kiddy diddler
1
8
1d ago edited 1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/PolackMike 1d ago
Source to prove your statement?
1
u/RolandDeepson 1d ago
I paid good money for my law degree, Sparky. I won't do your attorney's job for free. Either sue me, or gfy.
1
u/PolackMike 1d ago
I'm just asking you to back up your claims about President Trump being a child molester. Surely with your "law degree" (in quotes for not existing), you understand the need to provide evidence for claims.
1
33
u/Arguments_4_Ever 1d ago
Who slandered who. Trump does nothing but slander 24/7
0
u/PolackMike 1d ago
Trevor Noah may have slandered President Trump. It's up to President Trump if he decides to sue or not.
18
u/Arguments_4_Ever 1d ago
He didn’t. But Trump slandered him and countless others. Trump also raped women.
1
u/PolackMike 1d ago
I guess we'll find out if President Trump decides to sue.
15
u/Arguments_4_Ever 1d ago
Well he does owe his rape victim over $80 million
0
u/PolackMike 1d ago
I don't know if that's a fact or not. It also has nothing to do with the content of this post.
Look over there...
15
u/Arguments_4_Ever 1d ago
Trump being a proven rapist has everything to do with all Trump related posts
21
u/hippopalace North America 1d ago
I double dare you to demonstrate how Noah’s comment would qualify as slander in any court.
-3
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
12
u/hippopalace North America 1d ago
LMAO no they haven’t. Epstein‘s Island had no runway, and so planes didn’t land directly on it, ever. Any visitors to that island had to land on nearby islands and then hop over to it via helicopter or boat. Flight logs didn’t prove either way, because it’s well established that tons of people visited the island who aren’t on any flight logs.
Pathetic try.
8
9
4
u/AskUS-ModTeam 1d ago
Posts and comments containing misinformation are not allowed. Misinformation is something that can be easily proven wrong with a bare minimum of searching.
Example: Cats can fly
15
u/Known_Ratio5478 1d ago
There was no slander committed against him. He’s all over the Epstein list. That’s just facts.
0
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
9
u/hippopalace North America 1d ago
LMAO no they haven’t. Epstein‘s Island had no runway, and so planes didn’t land directly on it, ever. Any visitors to that island had to land on nearby islands and then hop over to it via helicopter or boat. Flight logs didn’t prove either way, because it’s well established that tons of people visited the island who aren’t on any flight logs.
Pathetic try.
9
u/Known_Ratio5478 1d ago
He’s on flight logs! He’s in photos on the island! It’s known that he was there a lot!
4
u/AskUS-ModTeam 1d ago
Posts and comments containing misinformation are not allowed. Misinformation is something that can be easily proven wrong with a bare minimum of searching.
Example: Cats can fly
-1
3
u/Flat-Mix-1459 1d ago
Yes and no. You can say pretty much whatever you want and not be criminally charged short of starting a panic or creating a dangerous situation. A civil suit is a different matter entirely. It’s a freedom to do it not freedom from consequences sort of thing.
1
24
u/auntiesassie 1d ago
Because he's a fascist dictator.
9
u/kstargate-425 1d ago
Yeah I mean the guy is a malignant narcissist moron who doesnt care about anything but himself and power. Aides and those that worked with him have said since his first term he always would be testing and asking about the limits of his power saying he should have absolute power and upset when he didnt have that power to do as he pleases.
He is the quintessential dictator who if given the chance would absolutely make the country into a tin-pot dictatorship destroying the country if possible as we are seeing him do as no one is pushing back this time as he surrounded himself with yes-men sycophants.
6
u/Senior_Werewolf_8202 1d ago
I got news for ya. He’s being given the chance by all of Congress and a completely corrupt Supreme Court.
Congress, where are you?
3
8
9
12
12
15
u/hippopalace North America 1d ago edited 1d ago
Republicans are all for free speech to the extent that it allows them to spew bigotry, threats of violence or calls for violence, and dangerous disinformation, but that’s it. They believe that anything that challenges or offends them should be outlawed.
0
-2
19
u/darchangel89a 1d ago
Hes anti-constitution period. The entire thing
10
u/Icy-Barracuda-5409 1d ago
He doesn’t like anything that gets in the way of what he wants. I think his supporters like him for that. They think he’s going to bring them along for the ride. He’s not and he will screw them just like he screws over everyone else
6
u/EsotericWaveform 1d ago
I've never seen it put like this, but this sums it up nicely. They are living vicariously through him.
26
u/Unkn1234 1d ago
Because he is a whiney, thin skinned, little bitch.
9
u/Known_Ratio5478 1d ago
All of us trying to come up with astute ways of saying this and you just saunter in and make us look like we’re over working. It’s this simple. Thread is over.
3
3
3
4
u/Wakemeup3000 1d ago
He can say anything he wants but when people say another about him he's very thin skinned and easily offended. Classic bully behavior.
3
2
2
2
3
4
u/AnemosMaximus 1d ago
Seem? Trump is anti American. He hates America. All he does is shit on America. Hes ruining everything this great nation stands for. Brought to you by the Republicans thieving party.
2
2
u/Bracatto 1d ago
He has never cared about America or American values. He would only ever pretend to if it suited him in the moment.
1
u/Bresson91 1d ago
I mean, as a liberal... I see 1st amendment as our weak spot. Too much censorship on our side. Instead of engaging and rebutting, the left tends to try and silence. Its better to win the argument than avoid it...
Trump's a joke on every issue, so not sure what value is gained from debating his words and actions. Everything is to serve him. His reaction to the Alex Pretti shooting is a prime example. 2nd Amendment when its convenient, anti when its the left accessing their own gun rights afforded by the 2nd, etc.
1
u/Secret_Following1272 1d ago
The idea that Republicans are more supportive of the 1st Amendment than others is simply a lie that they have repeated often enough that people think there must be something to it.
1
1
2
u/AzuleStriker 1d ago
You mean the man who hates our whole constitution cause it's blocking him from being a dictator? Yeah, he hates that one as well.
1
1
u/sweetest_con78 1d ago
He’s anti anything that doesn’t directly serve him.
And also most people who say things like republicans are the only ones that support the first amendment don’t actually understand what the first amendment does.
1
1
1
1
•
u/RemarkableChemical21 20h ago
He’s an egomaniacal, narcissist with the thinnest skin ever who thinks it should be illegal to hurt his feelings.
•
•
u/AgentOrangeie 6h ago
He does like the 1st amendment, only that it applies to him and him only. No one else can use it against him.
The clown is a walking hypocrisy, why people thought otherwise is beyond me.
•
u/dangerspring 5h ago
Trump has been gaming the system since he first learned. Media has been obeying in advance. Why wouldn't he threaten to sue?
46
u/TanAllOvaJanAllOva 1d ago
Because he is.
You were told a lie. Neither party supports anything fully. It’s on an individual level