Do you think it's illegal to say negative things about the US president?

[goaded]

"... they’ll take a great story, and they’ll make it bad. See, I think that’s really illegal, personally"

Donald J Trump.

Will he be arresting everyone at Fox News for their lies about Biden? Why not?

https://content.jwplatform.com/videos/9LKEmoSL.mp4

https://www.mediaite.com/media/tv/trump-claims-excessive-criticism-of-him-on-tv-is-illegal-and-no-longer-free-speech/

If you keep breaking the law, you're going to get negative news stories.

Yes, Trump is right.

No, Trump is wrong.

Don't know/see results

Updates

10 mo

He's still at it.
"Seth Meyers of NBC may be the least talented person to “perform” live in the history of television,... Why does NBC waste its time and money on a guy like this? - NO TALENT, NO RATINGS, 100% ANTI TRUMP, WHICH IS PROBABLY ILLEGAL!!!"

Sad.

[MisterWack]

Republicans, Independents, Democrats criticize US Presidents regardless of who is in The White House because no President does a perfect 10/10 pass with flying colors and there is always a scandal no matter how small or big.

I will say, it is legal and within your right as an American to voice your concern with the current Administration. President FDR was criticized by First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt about Japanese Internment Camps, she even visited those Internment Camps to see firsthand and to speak out against the atrocities against US Citizens’ Natural Born Rights.
It is totally legal to voice criticism of President regardless of political affiliation.
She was Democrat and still took a stand where most wouldn’t let alone spouse.

Know your rights and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

[msc545]

I think the First Amendment guarantees free speech, so as long as that is still valid, Trump cannot do much about what is said, until he gets rid of that pesky provision.

[goaded]

Well, apparently he can get companies to go along with his wishes by threatening their bottom line using government power. I think that's a violation of the first amendment, but the corporations don't care if their C-suite get their bonuses.

“The Fascist State lays claim to rule in the economic field no less than in others.” Mussolini

Note: it says "lays claim", not "has a legal right". It's how German companies used slave labour during WWII.

[msc545]

He is not doing this by threatening them with legal action. He is doing this by threatening them with illegal action which is essentially extortion. Once again Trump breaks the law and nothing is done about it.

[msc545]

In another context, what he is doing is called "strong-arm robbery" - Like when a huge guy comes up to you on the street and says, "give me your wallet or I'll kill you".

You give him the wallet if you have any common sense.

[goaded]

It's a shame for him that at least the judges still seem to be clinging to the idea that the country's based on the rule of law...

[dustybiker2]

Threats to life or due harm, yes.
But "negative", no.

Not only is it legal it is an American right. A president represents the people. Lives in the peoples house. And should be criticized to improve (in most cases)

Trump is a thin-skinned "acting" president who cannot handle the lightest criticism. "They only hit Trump."

[Abbycado]

Anymore, who knows? He certainly thinks it is.

[Avicenna]

As usual, goaded is lying by omission and misrepresenting what Trump said

But he lives in a country where while you’ll get a knock on the door from the police if you express an opinion the elites don’t like, state media is hysterical in its anti-Trump and anti-US propaganda. Goaded knows he can’t criticize his government, so he never does. But it’s safe to lie, distort, and misrepresent anything Trump says or does.

Goaded, you would have fit right in with that regime in the 1930s.

[goaded]

Oh, please do explain what context I left out of "... they’ll take a great story, and they’ll make it bad. See, I think that’s really illegal, personally".

As usual you're full of it.

[loveslongnails]

If you magats are still asleep, does this wake you up? Can't criticize the President? Can't speak against the government's policies without fear of being locked up? Are you magats really THAT STUPID as to not know what comes next, or what that means?

[goaded]

They don't care, as long as it's not directed at them.

[ChooChooHaha]

That's a given for the commies. Notice Obama and Biden did the same shit.

[goaded]

@ChooChooHaha No they didn't.

[loveslongnails]

@ChooChooHaha Bullshit, girl. Go watch Obama's speech where he CLEARLY states that as President, he not only EXPECTS criticism every single day, but he welcomes it. Do some homework before you spread misinformation and learn some facts, not Fox or GOP bullshit.

[ChooChooHaha]

So he claimed in a speech. But one can lie, even if they're beloved by some people.

Sadly, not bullshit at all. Did you catch his responses to any of these cases?

Julian Assange? James O'Keefe? Jeremy Scahill? Glenn Greenwald? Sarah Harrison? David Miranda? Anwar Al-Awlaki? The Guardian? Daniel Hale? Ed Snowden? Nawar Al-Awlaki?

Any of these ring a bell?
Of course not.

Guess what? That's how I make money my guy. How about YOU learn facts and get your head out of 2003? Dems can be wrong too, and often very sinister. I like how presenting a complete picture and telling the truth constitutes something you perceive is a slur/discrediting me. People get on Trump's case for breathing the wrong way, why do you need me tp publicly denounce him? Do I live in North Korea? Do you?

The fact you think someone opposing abuse of power across the board somehow discredits me is incredibly sad and scary. Just cause someone criticizes a politician that's not "right wing" , GOP, etc. (whatever any of those mean anymore) doesn't make it wrong.

[ChooChooHaha]

Yes, they did @goaded.

Ever catch Michael Hastings? 😃 Seth Rich? Aaron Swartz?

Fox 🤣 No one watches them anymore dude.

Here's something to ACTUALLY get upset about re: something Trump did:

Trump singled out an 8 year American girl abroad and had her executed? Guess who started harassing and stalking her family, starting with her father? Barack Obama while he was president.

Trump also banned flag burning by executive order. Even though the supreme court made it constitutional since ~ 1989.

[goaded]

@ChooChooHaha You're just throwing out debunked conspiracy theories in a Gish Gallop now.

[ChooChooHaha]

Sadly, no. I couldn't believe it at first either.

AND the fact you perceive that term means what you think it still means is sad yet laughable at the same time. Do you know where that term comes from?

https://youtu.be/IqNyZwbRLrs?feature=shared

www.whitehouse.gov/.../

[ChooChooHaha]

@goaded Warning though: if you start looking into the persecution of the Awlaki family, be careful. It is not for the faint of heart.

[goaded]

@ChooChooHaha Do you know what the word "debunked" means? So the one that isn't debunked is al-Awlaki, the member of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and his family. SCOTUS would say that was legal; the president ordering drone strikes against terrorism in foreign countries.

What about the rest? Julian Assange was persecuted by Bush. Who is David Miranda? James O'Keefe, Jeremy Scahill, Glenn Greenwald, and The Guardian, are all cheerfully exercising their first amendment rights, Snowdon and Hale broke the law.

[ChooChooHaha]

Debunked about what? What are you talking about?

Al-alwaki was ACCUSED Al Qaida. He was American. He was from here. So were his kids. Was being harrassed by the feds, went into hiding. He didn't even have a trial. So were his children. And they were all singled out for execution in Yemen, and murdered. Claimed terrorism. Based on what? How do we know Anwar al-Awlaki was a terrorist? Cause the president said so? Cause DNI said so? Not how this works. SCOTUS can be wrong on the constitutionality, you know. They're not infalliable. That's not their job, to determine legality. Besides do you realize what it means if the Supreme Court allowed it? Do you understand what it means? The President's got a hit list, brought to light by Daniel Hale (I believe). All based on politics.

Nope. You got your timelines wrong. In the face of Bush II, he was regarded as a hero. When did Julian Assange first enter the Ecuadorian embassy? 2012. Guess who was president then? 😁 Hint, not Trump, not Bush II. Did you see GCHQ's response on behalf of the NSA shortly after the Snowden leaks came out? Watch Citizenfour. It's all there. David Miranda, Glenn Greenwald's husband, was harrassed and detained unlawfully shortly after the Snowden leaks came out. James O'Keefe and his staff were raided by the FBI shortly after the Ashley Biden diary came out, and guess who was president? Glenn Greenwald was harrassed and detained by the feds every time he came to America and probably still is after the Snowden leaks came out.

Ed Snowden and Daniel Hale did nothing of the kind. They exposed criminal actions. Unchecked power to murder anyone the executive (president) chooses, anywhere? Doesn't matter if you're American. Doesn't matter where you live. What rights you're supposed to have.

[ChooChooHaha]

Soooo, by your train of thought, it's the talking about the criminal behavior and actions by the government that's the problem? Not the president's hit list, his ability to murder, abuse his prisoners, surveil you, me, or anyone for no good reason, other than cause they want to? Not the FBI's, NSA's, or local cops's, ability to watch us for no good reason? Only cause they feel like it?

Maybe a drone was following you, and someone in the NSA didn't like the look on your face. They can add your name to the president's list. And it's only a matter of time then...

Sounds a bit unconstitutional, no? Prisoner abuse? Unchecked surveillance? Murder at any place on earth, no matter what? Especially all by the executive?

[ChooChooHaha]

You ever crack open FISA legislation and the Patriot Act? It's the biggest bullshit you've ever read. There's two legal clauses," fruit of the poisonus tree" and "ex post facto." Fruit of the poisonus tree. You know the "terrorists" in Gitmo have a fruit of the poisonus tree defense? Just cause the government has a guy that said a thing doesn't make it true. Government's not allowed to make laws to cover themselves after breaking it. A lot of terrorism legislation is just that and fruit of the poisonus tree.

Government gets to know what books you read, has access to your bank account. All because they said so. No good reason, just cause they said so. Cause they want to.

[ChooChooHaha]

You can call it whatever you want. Doesn't diminish the truth of the matter. Two faces, same coin.

[goaded]

@ChooChooHaha None of those people were targeted for simply saying mean things about the president, were they?

[loveslongnails]

@ChooChooHaha None of us are disagreeing with the heinous behaviors of FISA or governments who make up whatever the fuck rules they want and go after anyone who breaks them. None of us are disagreeing that this happens on both sides of the coin. Though I could argue easily which side is more desperately secretive about it, none of us believe the US govt isn't doing "some" nasty shit covertly no matter who is in office. But there's a measurable difference as to how much gets done under whom.

For right now, the point is about merely speaking OUT against the President or those in authority. It's reminiscent of when Teddy Roosevelt spoke out against Wilson and people of prominence and power called for him to be executed by firing squad, just because he spoke out against policy. Trump and Hegshit would gladly do that.

[ChooChooHaha]

@goaded. Exactly. They were targeted for telling the truth.

@loveslongnails I know. But why is this so shocking and horrible now? So Trump has joined the line up of president's being against the first amendment. No one gaf about Jay Carey getting arrested over his first amendment rights being violated. It's been going on for a quite a long time. Trump won't be the last.

[ChooChooHaha]

@goaded by the way, no one cares about mean things being said.

[goaded]

@ChooChooHaha Trump does, he thinks it should be illegal, but only when they're about him. He's allowed to do it all day long. That's the whole point of the question.

[goaded]

Correction: Trump thinks it IS illegal to say mean things about him. That's the point of the question.

[loveslongnails]

@ChooChooHaha What's shocking is that 70 million magats think it's perfectly ok. It was never ok, no matter which President did it. Among the differences are that Trump brags about it as well as passes it off as a new normal, which the magats willingly accept.

[loveslongnails]

This is likely very true.

[ChooChooHaha]

@goaded
No he doesn't. He isn't that stupid.

[ChooChooHaha]

Exactly. It's never ok. EVER. @loveslongnails
We had that for years already but no one cared til now.

[loveslongnails]

@ChooChooHaha Ok choo, point is, everyday average folk weren't getting fired from their jobs because they spoke out against the "President" or his policies. People returning to the USA who are CITIZENS weren't getting their phones searched to see if they said anything against the President. You said this is how you earn your living? You should be smart enough to see that this is now well beyond what was before, and what the plan is. I'm not going to waste my energy beleaguering the past for comparison purposes. The USA is on the brink of pure authoritarianism unlike it was before, albeit covertly, that was already bad. Now it's overt, and worse. You know that.

[goaded]

@ChooChooHaha If Trump wasn't that stupid, he wouldn't have said "... they’ll take a great story, and they’ll make it bad. See, I think that’s really illegal, personally". He's the president of the USA, he has access to the best legal minds in the country, but he's sure he knows better than them.

[ChooChooHaha]

@loveslongnails Yes they were. Covertly or not, it's the same shit. You ever hear of Glenn Greenwald? It was happening to him for a LONG TIME. Yes they were. American citizens were treated like this LONG BEFORE Jimmy Kimmel was on the chopping block, I don't know what you're talking about. Those of us that cracked open the Patriot Act once it was enacted called this, and saw it coming decades away, it turns out. Now that Jimmy Kimmel was under attack, suddenly people care. Which I think is funny. Fuck political prisoners, evidently. It's all due to what the powers that be tell you to freak out about.

People got fired for saying things completely true 10 years ago, before they even got their current jobs. And YET, no one cared. JK Rowling suffered rape, torture, and death threats for something she didn't even say, almost no one blinked. People tried to get her publisher to drop her. No one blinked. Feds have been operating like this for a long time in the shadows and the light. The dissent/disloyalty misconception had been there long before we were even born in government and media. You ever hear of the "Insider Threat" program at NSA?

Yes, I do see it, of course it's getting worse. I just think the reactions are funny right now because the propagandists said so. "OMG authoritarianism! Censorship!" Disney can work hand in hand with a government exterminating it's people to this day, but because of said government, no one does anything.

"It can't happen to Americans, it can happen to me." Yes it can, and it has been happening for a long time to Americans. It just happened to people the elites said to not like, dissent, or care about. It doesn't mean it didn't happen. ONE is too many, American or not.

[ChooChooHaha]

@goaded Where did you catch this? Think of CNN's editing surrounding Trump, Mexican citizens, and MS-13. The propagandists tend to flip flop. He's a criminal mastermind, or he's a complete moron. Depends on the lunar cycles apparently.

He was probably talking about slander, libel, defamation, and incitement to violence in regards to the propagandists. Which they do, and have tried to do, for years. They succeeded with Charlie Kirk.

Where did he say that? Did he even imply it? Did you see that in context? He might think one can make the case for it. That's perfectly reasonable. There might be instances where you personally think an argument could be made for anything. You can still disagree with someone who outranks you, or knows a lot about a certain subject, especially in our society, and be right, or vice versa. Even if your degree says otherwise. You don't need a basic law degree to reasonably disagree or have your own perfectly based beliefs about anything legal (which is part of our system, I'd say). Lawyers and presidents across the world get shit wrong regularly. On what basis? They're human.

More to the point: of all the legal minds the president has access to, you'd think they'd always tell him the truth. Nope. Listen to John Kiriakou, Michael Hastings, and Ray McGovern. HOLY SHIT.

[ChooChooHaha]

@loveslongnails So the shadow actions have now reached the main street light. How many times was this called out over the past... ~ 25 years or so?
TOO MANY. And I was one of them to do so.

I doubt 70 million people think that which the propagandists say they do. I doubt they even left their studio. 😄

Ask randos on the subway, or someone you're waiting in line with. Does person X really think it's ok for the president to punish people? Doubt it. Most Americans and halfway reasonable won't stand for it.

[loveslongnails]

@ChooChooHaha I realize it's been happening since the early 1800's, in one form or another. Yes, I've heard of the Insider Threat program. All of it is a function of whatever the particular administration deems classified or threatening at any given time. Yes, I'm well aware of home many governments the CIA has toppled or backed the replacement of. I've always said that Americans have been sold "the illusion of freedom" to a great extent, and it was labeled "The American Dream".

I'm not debating that it hasn't been done in the shadows for decades. Of course there's more notice of it now because "news" is instantaneous, and the discovery of it is more widespread. Regardless, there's a quantitative difference once the Gestapo starts knocking down doors or arresting brown skinned people or "blue" supporters. This has gone beyond the scope of "government" into a religion fueled psychosis posing as government. Don't you think?

[ChooChooHaha]

Then you know! You know!

Shadows and light, actually. I wasn't completely accurate earlier. Cause it wasn't classified info or whatever. They did all this right in front of our faces, like now. You know they raided Dan Ellsberg's therapist office?

Nope. Cause the numbers in the media frame aren't large enough for it to be a "religion fueled psychosis posing as gov." And if it was, why the double standard? The claimed Repubs are supposedly the devil? Trump is the devil? If so, how did they all get power then? Where the fuck were we all during this rise to power?" Have you not seen what the SJWs been doing over the past few years?

If most of what you watch is "mah authority" putting out propa (CNN, Fox, aka shit no one watces anymore seriously), of course you'll believe the hive mind religious psychosis thing. I used to believe it. Til I bothered to talk to people.

I see more of a religious psychosis in a gov. org. who go after citizen wrongthinkers for standing up for their fellow man, doing their jobs, protecting children, and exposing corruption. Does surveillance of journalists count on American soil? How about dissidents?

How dare these citizens not cuck to authority?
Guess what this organization is?

You're saying the Gestapo arrived recently, I'm saying, they've been here the whole time.

[ChooChooHaha]

And they're not the Gestapo. They're worse in foreign history. They're the the Stasi.

[goaded]

@ChooChooHaha "@goaded Where did you catch this?" There's a link to the video in the question, and another to reporting about it that quotes him. Are you saying Trump didn't say "... they’ll take a great story, and they’ll make it bad. See, I think that’s really illegal, personally"?

How much "context" or "editing" would it take for those words not to have come out of his mouth?

You know his advisors and Fox have been showing Trump 5 year old videos of Portland to convince him to send troops there, right? He can't even tell the difference. He even re-posted an AI video of HIMSELF making ridiculous "medbed" claims.

Stop trying to sane-wash what he says by "He was probably talking about...", he said what he said. He didn't say he would sue, he didn't even say it "should be" illegal, he said it's "really illegal".

[loveslongnails]

@ChooChooHaha Let's call it a "quantitative difference", as in the number of them and who they're now going after. There's also less and less recourse. It doesn't matter if your legal rights are being ignored, just like before, but there is no remedy going up the ladder, even for citizens.

[ChooChooHaha]

@goaded:

He might've said that. That might be verbadem, in context. But from gov. media... yeah... like you can really trust them...🤣

You don't need much, sadly.
Remember CNN committed slander against Trump, trying to frame his speech as him claiming all Mexican citizens are rapists? In context, it turned out he was specifically talking about MS13. If that doesn't say a lot, I don't know what does. Supposedly they're sayig this to him. Trump knows that the propagandists will run WILD with it. I know it, and I didn't even get a Master's Degree in Business Admin. He's manipulating the media. Remember covfefe? More to the point with an unrelated topic: remember the milk drinking nazis? That came from an EPIC troll from 4chan, AND IT WORKED LIKE A CHARM. Media fuckery goes back a LONG TIME, even in American history. Mexican American war, Gulf of Tonkin, Iraq, Michael Cohen, Ed Snowden.

Oh my god. 🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️
It's got NOTHING to do with Trump. This is called reasonable doubt. If MC Hammer was the president, and all this was happening in regards to him, I'd say the same shit. Do we really know as much as we think we do? The treachery of D. C. alone, as John Kiriakou will even admit, is RIDICULOUS. If you pay attention even a little bit, you'd understand there's a rhythm to these things, especially in the face of the powers that be.

Did he say what gov. media said? Did the Persians really want Mossadek out of office when the Shah was imposed? Did the Vietnamese really attack the American military, starting the Vietnam War?
And you'll still believe gov. media? Yeah...

He might think so. Just like you might think something else re: the law in any respect. Until he gets someone arrested for flag burning, which he already as (Jay Carey is the real deal in my opinion) or something else, his thought crimes are the least of my worries. I was more concerned with Obama 's and Biden's first amendment treatment than most presidents.

[ChooChooHaha]

@loveslongnails
To which I say: fair enough.

But let's remember who picked this fight, and tries to keep it going (not like this excuses anything): the SJWs. The commies/ socialists. The "noble intentioned," "offensive speech," "hate speech," people. The ones that got people fired for even telling the truth when off the job.

[goaded]

@ChooChooHaha You're asking me to falsely believe CNN (which is not the only source of the video) is "gov. media" (while they're pointing out the Emperor has no clothes, no less!) and to falsely doubt the video of Trump saying exactly that he thinks it is illegal for media to publish negative stories about him. Get lost. You're ridiculous.

[ChooChooHaha]

No I'm not. I have zero love for those liars. You misunderstood my statement.

In quotes? Honey, you haven't been paying attention.

Government media SAYS he has no clothes. My doubts about government media are no less valid than yours about Seth Rich. Keep in mind, I'm not defending Trump. I'm questioning the approved messengers.

One is allowed to doubt Taylor Swift, Bugs Bunny, The Thai king, and/or John Podesta.

Call me whatever you want. But I ask: who's more ridiculous? The one who listens and obeys the approved messengers, or the one who questions the propagandists? People are putting Trump under a microscope for standing the wrong way (literally), why do you need me to mention anything?

[ChooChooHaha]

How do you believe a word these paid liars say? @goaded After invading Iraq ALONE... yeah...

[goaded]

@ChooChooHaha Ridiculous. Trump said "... they’ll take a great story, and they’ll make it bad. See, I think that’s really illegal, personally" (it's not). Telling people not to believe the evidence of their own eyes and ears, like you want us to do, is propaganda.

[ProbablyClueless]

It's generally not illegal to say negative things about the President, but there's something called "false light," which definitely skirts in the line of being illegal. False light is where true facts are being presented in an either way that either implies or directly states something that isn't true. The media is absolutely guilty of this, and it extends far beyond opinions or social commentary.

[goaded]

You're right. Trump is a very private person, not at all a public figure.

"In US law, false light is a tort concerning privacy that is similar to the tort of defamation. The privacy laws in the United States include a non-public person's right to protection from publicity that creates an untrue or misleading impression about them." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_light

[ProbablyClueless]

False light applies to both public and private people. Just because someone has taken on the role of a public figure does not mean that they don’t have a reasonable expectation that actions they do in the public eye will be reported and commented on with a certain degree of accuracy

[goaded]

* A publication by the defendant about the plaintiff;
* made with actual malice if the plaintiff is a public figure;
* which places the plaintiff in a false light;
* and that would be highly offensive (i. e., embarrassing to reasonable persons).

Oh, look, it has to be "false", and "with actual malice".

So what's been falsely reported with actual malice about Trump?

I'm pretty sure quoting someone isn't false, although in Trump's case it can be malicious.

[ProbablyClueless]

A quote can be false light if the public figure provides some kind of clarifying detail or correction that would substantially change the meaning of what was said. In Trump‘s case the comment he made about sanitation methods to fight COVID is a good example of false light. Trump never said anything about injecting or inhaling bleach.

The actual quote of what he said, makes it abundantly clear that he was talking about using a UV light inside the lungs. The media took something he actually said, and then clearly distorted the meaning to make Trump look bad.

There was also a gaff with Trump and (I believe) the Prime Minister of Japan. Where the media showed a video of Trump dumping the food into water the same way that the Japanese leader did. The way the media edited the video made it seem like Trump was being disrespectful to the Japanese. The media has also used deceptive photo editing tactics to make Trump appear visually worse.

[ProbablyClueless]

The big thing with false light is that the media has to be portraying the information in a way that it really ought to know is inaccurate

[goaded]

This is what Snopes says about the bleach thing: "Though Trump's comments made little sense and were ridiculed and described as dangerous by experts, under any reasonable interpretation of his words, he didn't explicitly suggest people should inject themselves with bleach or other household disinfectants."

When was that again? Five years ago. Did the media not report Trump's "clarifications"?

How, exactly, do you think that justifies Trump's administration threatening one company's merger and another company's broadcast licence just last week?

Trump and Fox regularly call Biden and Democrats evil and communists, but exaggerating Trump's nonsense is beyond the pale.

[ProbablyClueless]

You’re weirdly combative about this.

The media did not report the truth about that subject, no.

Not even the companies who preempted Kimmel think the FCC had anything to do with their decision. They got rid of Kimmel because he had a shit take that offended people. variety.com/.../

[goaded]

Ha! What do you think they're going to say if they were worried about the FCC that was threatening them? Sinclair would use any excuse to further increase their right-wing propaganda anyway.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvtNyOzGogc

Is it OK for Trump to call Democrats "evil"?

[ProbablyClueless]

Calling the Democrats evil is factually accurate. Their alarmist bullshit has resulted in the deaths of thousands of people, destroyed the economy and fractured our country.

[goaded]

"Calling the Democrats evil is factually accurate" and not at all "alarmist bullshit"? Bullshit.

[DrPepper12]

Trump doesn't understand anything beyond his appetites for rape, humiliation degradation, wealth, power & fame

[dustybiker2]

🤮🤮

[jazzy34]

Says the crowd who REPEATEDLY said Let's Go Brandon for four years. Get the hell out. -____-

[exitseven]

If it is not true or is misleading to the public it is. There are libel laws to protect people from lies.

[goaded]

Those are civil laws, not criminal. Also, Trump's $15bn lawsuit against the NYT just got thrown out in epic fashion by the judge. Just as well for Trump, discovery would have been epic.

[exitseven]

@goaded The court wants him to submit a claim that is more focused. They felt that it was much too long and all over the place.

[goaded]

It was something like 85 pages in what's supposed to be a brief document, the two actual claims were on pages 80 and 83.

[exitseven]

Yes, I think his lawyers were getting paid by the word.

[DarcyDuke]

Why just the US?
Why did you single out that country? Would you get mouthy if you’re in North Korea? Why or why not?

[goaded]

Because it's the president of the US who just claimed that, in defiance of US law.

[Still-alive]

lol such a victim complex sheesh

[DarcyDuke]

He’s talking about lying.

[goaded]

Who is? Trump? The one who says it's illegal to say negative things about him?

[DarcyDuke]

"... they’ll take a great story, and they’ll make it bad. See, I think that’s really illegal, personally"

[goaded]

Yes, that's Trump saying it's illegal to say negative things about him.

[DarcyDuke]

That’s your interpretation of what he said

[Still-alive]

Lol…

[DARKCLOUD1945X]

It is called the First Amendment; you can say what you want, and that includes the left that tells lies all the time for the last 4 years

[goaded]

See? That's the kind of lie you're welcome to keep repeating.

[DARKCLOUD1945X]

Go try our First Amendment right in Germany, and let us see what happens to you; we most probably won't hear a lot from you from behind bars!

[goaded]

Funnily enough, there's nothing to worry about if you don't lie.

[Twalli]

Trump seems to forget his comments after Biden was sworn in, including the RNC of 2024.

[Snakeyes7]

Is Trump having people at any other legacy news media arrested?

[goaded]

Whoa, I can barely see the goalposts where you moved them to!

[Snakeyes7]

No, the answer is no. Kimmell has not been arrested, nor should he be. He has committed no crime and has only been fired from his job. It is not a first amendment issue.

The only reason the government got involved was because he has been violating the FCC's guideline where broadcasters must abide by the "public interest, convenience, and necessity." Justifying the murder of a political activist who disagreed with him does not abide by that, in case you couldn't tell.

His ratings were also so bad and is such a waste of money to run his show at this point that this was an inevitable outcome anyway.

[goaded]

I know the answer is "no", more accurately "not yet", that's why you asked it. It has nothing to do with the question, which is whether you think "it's illegal to say negative things about the US president", like Trump claims.

The Trump administration threatened to punish corporations using the power of the government if they didn't do what he wanted.

Now, not just ABC and Nexstar, any corporation that's looking for government approval of a merger or licence now knows they have to kowtow to Trump or risk losing huge amounts of money. Those things are no longer about whether what they say is in the public interest, it's about whether it's in Trump's interest.

by the way: "On August 19, 2025, Nexstar announced its intent to acquire Tegna for $6.2 billion... On September 17, 2025, Nexstar announced that it would pull Jimmy Kimmel Live! from its ABC stations."

[Snakeyes7]

If enforcing FCC guidelines that have been in existence since the 1930s "punishing corporations using the power of the government if they didn't do what he wanted," then we would have devolved into fascism a loooong time ago. I mean the Biden admin literally made a department to fight against speech that goes against them, thank God it got shut down.

The only reason you think Trump will suddenly be against the first amendment even though he has clearly shown support for it is only because you seriously believe that he is a fascist only because your glowing rectangle told you he is without ever actually showing you what Trump is doing that made Mussolini's reign so dangerous without lying to your face and telling you not to believe your lying eyes.

[goaded]

Oh, God, here we go again. What FCC guideline did Kimmel break when he said "[w]e hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them, and doing everything they can to score political points from it"?

"the Biden admin literally made a department to fight against speech that goes against them" Really? What was it called? Did it, publicly or privately, threaten companies with having their licences revoked or mergers blocked?

Trump is laying claim to rule in the economic field. “The Fascist State lays claim to rule in the economic field no less than in others.” - Mussolini.

Trump is having people taken from the streets without warrants. He's having people locked up in foreign prisons without due process. He's murdering people in international waters. He's getting comedians cancelled. He's scapegoating minorities as the cause of everybody's problems. He's letting criminals go free if he likes them (hundreds of convicted Jan 6 rioters, multiple donors, a convicted sex trafficker, an Israeli caught red-handed soliciting sex from a minor, a member of his administration videoed by the FBI taking a $50,000 bribe, that's just off the top of my head, the list goes on...)

files.mastodon.online/.../32cf0d8c0199f779.jpeg
files.mastodon.online/.../ed259ac633f4ba63.jpeg

He's telling "his" DoJ to indict people who haven't committed crimes.


The good news about that last one is that it means everyone he named can simply show that to the judge and have whatever made-up case against them in the next few years thrown out on the basis of targeted prosecution.

[Snakeyes7]

>What FCC guideline did Kimmel break

Apparently, he broke the guideline that he must operate in the public interest. ABC is not like a youtube channel, they need permission from the FCC to operate and if the FCC so chooses, they can pull their license. I don't like that the FCC has that power either but if taxpayer money goes into keeping ABC on the air, it makes sense to step in if the show started demonizing at least half of the American population, which people like Kimmel and Colbert have been doing for at least a decade.

Kimmel was doing just that when he said that Kirk's murder was someone who is on his side and MAGA is trying to cover it up, even though the FBI has recieved testimony from the "kid's" parents and friends that he is a leftist, he is dating a tranny, he called Kirk a fascist via the bullet casings and he even admitted in court that he did it because Kirk was supposedly spreading hate, even though I guarantee that everything he has been fed was either made up or out of context and he has never seen any of the debates himself.

>Really? What was it called? Did it, publicly or privately, threaten companies with having their licences revoked or mergers blocked?

It was called the Disinformation Governance Board. It's purpose was "to protect national security by disseminating guidance to DHS agencies on combating misinformation, malinformation, and disinformation that threatens the security of the homeland." according to its Wikipedia page. It also claims that it targeted human smugglers over the US-Mexico border and over 2022 Ukraine conflict, but considering everything the democrats have been decrying as disinformation back then (i. e. simply disagreeing with how covid is being handled) It is no surprise that no one trusted a single thing that came from it, including me.

[Snakeyes7]

>Trump is laying claim to rule in the economic field. “The Fascist State lays claim to rule in the economic field no less than in others.” - Mussolini.

I guess the US has always been a fascist state then if that is what you claim because Trump hasn't been doing anything new. The US has been operating off of tariffs for most of it's existence, for example.

Also, Mussolini had nothing in common with Hitler other than a massive increase of state power and the slaughter of political dissidents. Fascism is just a fancy word for trade unionism, meaning that trade unions were arms of the state and the state controlled the economy through them. So yes, he really did control every aspect of the economy and there was nothing you could do about it because if you did, you were likely imprisoned or killed. It was everything everyone fears corporations will become long before Trump came along and if anything, Trump has been one of the only people who might actually do something about it, or at least I think so.

>Trump is having people taken from the streets without warrants.

You mean illegal immigrants.

> He's having people locked up in foreign prisons without due process.

Yeah that is complete bullshit. We have judges who determine whether they should be going there. It is not the same but it is due process. It is not the same because they are not legally in the country and we have no obligation to treat them like Americans.

>He's murdering people in international waters.

You mean the drug cartels who were directly responsible for trafficking fentanyl into the US and killing millions.

[Snakeyes7]

>He's getting comedians cancelled.

You creeps cheered when Trump was kicked off all of social media just to cover up the fact that Trump never advocated for a riot on the capitol (which thankfully people archived) so I have no sympathy for Kimmel for violating rules I did not make.

Also, Where were you when Rosanne Barr had the same happen to her over a tweet that former Barack Obama advisor Valerie Jarrett (who is whitest black person I have ever seen) looked like the "Muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes had a baby"? She never got her show back after making a statement that you could construe as racism, if you truly see black people as monkeys, but Kimmel did after outright lying to the people saying that a Trump fan killed him.

> He's scapegoating minorities as the cause of everybody's problems.

That is a strawman and you know it. It is because liberal judges have refused to ever lock minorities away when they commit a crime. The killer of Iryna Zarutska was arrested 14 times. If we had an actually blind justice system, he would have never been on the train to stab her.

>hundreds of convicted Jan 6 rioters

That's a lie, a good portion still have yet to be convicted and then there were those who weren't even there and got 20 years. He released those who were done wrong by the justice system.

I heard that Trump claimed that Nikola CEO was only targeted because he was a donor, otherwise his actions would have been ignored.

I don't know who this McCaskill person is so I need more context.

[Snakeyes7]

>everyone he named can simply show that to the judge and have whatever made-up case against them

If they have anything to defend themselves they should present it, that is what due process means. However, I do not feel bad for them. Comey advocated for assassinating Trump (the of shells that just so happen form into "8647"), Leticia James was already under investigation for what she accused Trump of.

All three did the same to Trump with smiles on their faces so their cries of political motivation mean nothing to me.

[goaded]

"Apparently, he broke the guideline..." How? By pointing out the truth about MAGA?
"Trump hasn't been doing anything new..." When did the US government take a stake in a company in exchange for already allocated funding? When did it get comedians fired for upsetting the president?
"You mean illegal immigrants." No. And every person in the US is entitled to due process.

I'm not going read through four long messages posted six days after the last one.

[Snakeyes7]

>By pointing out the truth about MAGA?
What truth? He literally told a lie about the nature of Kirk's assassin and implying that Kirk somehow brought it upon himself.

>When did the US government take a stake in a company in exchange for already allocated funding?

The FCC has been around doing this work since the 1930s so long before you and I were born.

>When did it get comedians fired for upsetting the president?

Never because that was not why he got fired for a couple days. Look at the beginning to see why.

> No. And every person in the US is entitled to due process.

They do have warrants and they have to go to court to get deportation orders so they DO get due process. I am so tired of this stupid lie. Kilmar Abrego Garcia received one in 2019 but was never sent home because our system is so broken and inefficient.

[goaded]

Another six days before responding? Kimmel did not lie, you are. He did not make a joke about Kirk's death, he made a joke about how MAGA were lying about what was known.

The FCC had nothing to do with partially nationalizing Intel. Finally, half the people being arrested by ICE are not subjects of warrants.

What was the joke Kimmel told about Kirk's death? ↗

[Snakeyes7]

>Another six days before responding?

This might come as a surprise to you but you can have a life outside of the internet. You should try it.

> Kimmel did not lie, you are. He did not make a joke about Kirk's death, he made a joke about how MAGA were lying about what was known.

That was a joke? That was not structured like a joke whatsoever. There was no punchline other than "Orange man (and those who like him) bad" like he and all of late night television have been doing for over a decade. They make more sawastikas than any of the people they decry as Nazis do, because they are full of shit.

Literally everything he said about Kirk's killer went against everything the FBI found. Testimony from his friends and family, the fact that he was dating a tranny, he even spelled it out to you on the bullet casings that he was a leftist. What right winger says "hey fascist, catch?"

Kimmel is either stupid or a liar, and at this point, I am tired of giving creeps like him the benefit of the doubt. He has no proof that any of what the FBI said was incorrect and is discrediting them just because they said things he didn't like.

[Snakeyes7]

>The FCC had nothing to do with partially nationalizing Intel.

You clearly haven't looked into it. I partly agree that they shouldn't be funding mainstream media but I think if they must, they should reserve the right to revoke those who demonize at least half of the country because their funding was forcibly stolen from us, so it is the least they can do.

Kimmel's show is on its death bed anyway. We have had shows canceled for view counts quadruple that of Kimmel's and that is with the most generous numbers I have seen. It turns out when your only joke is "orange man bad," people get bored and leave if they weren't originally repulsed by the blatant partisan politics.

>Finally, half the people being arrested by ICE are not subjects of warrants.

I notice that you didn't provide a source for this. I think it one thing that the standard for warrants are so low that it is often compared to passing out candy on Halloween but to say that is absurd to me. I am sure the government knows who these people are, they pay taxes to a country they swear no allegiance to for some reason.

[ChooChooHaha]

Crack open the 1st amendment and case law.

[Kaneki05]

Of course not.

[Gwendoline]

Like slander and liable?

[goaded]

What slander and libel? You know that $15bn lawsuit against the NY Times? Thrown out by the judge, and the lawyers essentially warned to do their jobs properly.

[Gwendoline]

Slander
the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation.
Libel
a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.

[goaded]

Yes, I was asking for an actual example of something untrue reported about Trump.

[ChooChooHaha]

Slander is spoken. Print is libel.

How much do you want to bet that these cases will be used to fuck us down the road?

[goaded]

@ChooChooHaha Yes, I was asking for an actual example of something untrue reported about Trump.

[loveslongnails]

Gwendoline, you really need to get your head OUT of your conservative, "my religion has the answer for everything" ass, and start employing and developing "critical analytics" when it comes to evaluating information. If you don't, you're going to end up like Karaline Leavitt, spewing lies for a bunch of men 40 -50 years older who don't give a shit about you.

[Gwendoline]

@loveslongnails I dont think any left vs right liberal or conservative politician cares about the people that voted them in.

[loveslongnails]

Then you would be incorrect as well. I don't know of ANY Conservative politicians in the national spotlight who OBVIOUSLY care about their constituents, but I know of at least two liberals who do; AOC and Ilhan Omar. So did Pete Buttigieg. Wake up.

[Gwendoline]

@loveslongnails lol politicians like the "squad" are just there for social media pics.

[ChooChooHaha]

@loveslongnails @Gwendoline is correct. None of em gaf.

[ChooChooHaha]

@loveslongnails Even if she is conservative, is she wrong?

[loveslongnails]

@ChooChooHaha You're only wrong if you assume that every single politician doesn't give a shit. It's the ones who have given a shit that make a difference in the lives of us "peasants", however small those differences may be. And like it or not, there's a qualitative and quantitative difference in which wing of the same bird flies strongest, again, albeit not by much.

[Gwendoline]

@loveslongnails a woman wearing a $20,000 ballgown with tax the rich on it. How do I take a woman like that seriously?
Thats the price of a brand new car that most "peasents" can't afford.

[loveslongnails]

I'm sorry, but wtf are you talking about? You have some singular experience with dress and this somehow applies to... what?

[beefcakebradybatson]

King Donald thinks it is !!!

[AngryCarl2]

Isn't that for the Supreme Court to decide?

[goaded]

No, I think it's been the obvious law of the land since the first amendment was written.

[AngryCarl2]

I used to think that about a lot of things that were overturned by the Supreme Court.

[goaded]

Only this one. The one that is nakedly partisan and corrupt.

[AngryCarl2]

True. Thomas and Alito need to be impeached at minimum.

[goaded]

The ones nominated by Trump should have recused themselves from any case involving him, too.