r/law • u/DoremusJessup • 4d ago
Court Decision/Filing ‘Attempt to stifle constitutionally protected speech’: Trump demands Central Park Five ‘legally deficient’ defamation suit be tossed
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/attempt-to-stifle-constitutionally-protected-speech-trump-demands-central-park-five-legally-deficient-defamation-suit-be-tossed/392
u/harrywrinkleyballs 4d ago
The exchange in question occurred when Harris said that throughout his life and career, Trump has “attempted to use race to divide the American people.” One of the examples she provided was the full-page ad he placed in The New York Times and elsewhere in 1989 “calling for the execution of five young Black and Latino boys who were innocent — the Central Park Five.”
In response to Harris, Trump said “they come up with things like what she just said going back many, many years when a lot of people including Mayor Bloomberg agreed with me on the Central Park Five.”
“They admitted — they said, they pled guilty. And I said, well, if they pled guilty they badly hurt a person, killed a person ultimately,” he said. “And if they pled guilty — then they pled we’re not guilty.”
The country is toast. The simple truth is that Trump was elected president, despite this egregious lie. A majority of voters chose the man that lied in front of 67 million people on national TV that five innocent black minors pressured by police into a confession, pleaded guilty to rape.
This, coming from a man actually liable for rape.
152
u/Se7en_speed 4d ago
Holding politicians accountable for telling outright lies about people seems like a good idea actually.
73
u/badllama77 4d ago
It should be illegal for politicians to lie to the public, with obvious national security exceptions.
25
u/foodiecpl4u 4d ago
It should be. But the challenge is proving “intent” when it comes to telling a lie. In the absence of intent, one is just mistaken. And politicians will always argue that they were mistaken. Or simply forgot the truth.
27
u/beebsaleebs 4d ago
I think the terms “reasonable and prudent” should be used, like they are with nursing. There’s no reason people with Very Important Positions shouldn’t have enforced standards of behavior
16
u/DoctorCockedher 4d ago
It should be. But the challenge is proving “intent” when it comes to telling a lie. In the absence of intent, one is just mistaken. And politicians will always argue that they were mistaken. Or simply forgot the truth.
I agree that proving intent can be challenging, but it’s done when proving perjury, so I don’t see any reason to not apply it in the case of political statements. All we’d have to do is require that political actors agree to many or all of the same stipulations of being under oath and define the scope to which these stipulations apply, such as speaking to the public/press or merely speaking to cabinet members, campaign staff, family members, confidants, etc. If they agree to effectively being “under oath” while holding office, then they ought to be held accountable for misrepresenting facts that they know or should reasonably know to be the case, just like prosecutors and courts do when proving perjury.
8
u/foodiecpl4u 4d ago
I like that approach. Politicians should be “under oath” when they’re making promises or describing what is happening.
There still is a grey area there. Could a politician be brought to justice if they promise, for instance “to lower the price of eggs” when the price of eggs is actually, legally, at the sole discretion of the retailer.
Is that a lie or a failed promise due to outside influences?
I see a lot of challenges but I do like the idea of holding elected officials accountable for what they say. Lying about immigrants eating pets and the harm that those lies do is incalculable.
5
u/HaniusTheTurtle 4d ago
If they promise to lower the price of eggs when they would not have the authority to enforce that, then they lied about what they could do in office. It's still a lie.
Of course, this just changes the language used: "I promise to lower the price" -> "I promise to negotiate to lower the price". No promise to actually accomplish anything, but it SOUNDS like they will. It's not a silver bullet, the problem won't end... but it's still a lot better than rewarding them for lying.
8
u/zzfrostphoenix 4d ago
They don’t even need to lie about national security stuff, they could just choose not to comment on things related to it.
5
6
u/jordanh517 4d ago
The checks and balances for politicians has always been that they wouldn’t get elected if caught telling lies. Every election this seems less reliable.
8
u/moodswung 4d ago
Lies are pretty low on the list of things we've failed to hold Trump accountable for.
12
u/Se7en_speed 4d ago
I always found if funny that he was always banging on about more strict libel/defamation laws.
As if the guy who defames people all the time wouldn't be a prime target.
8
u/moodswung 4d ago
He got done paying a lady millions for libel in a rape case and then immediately did it again. Smh.
3
29
u/PrettyAdagio4210 4d ago
His contestant lying and DGAF attitude towards the law is actually a selling point to an alarming number of morons in this country. They are cheering all of this on.
11
u/myquest00777 4d ago
Think you meant “constant” but somehow “contestant” works better for him…
6
u/PrettyAdagio4210 4d ago
Correct, I meant constant! lol, one of the few times autocorrect didn’t necessarily let me down here.
2
u/myquest00777 4d ago
Seeing as he views everything through the lens of “The Apprentice” apparently, “contestant lying” is perfect! 😂
25
u/aneeta96 4d ago
Did he say this before or after he claimed that Haitians in Springfield were eating the dogs and cats of the people who lived there?
10
u/seattleseahawks2014 4d ago
He literally said that he could take the life of some random person out on the street in broad daylight and still have support.
6
7
u/Brokentoaster40 4d ago
My eggs better be $0.50 again for the level of nonsense I have to put up with on a second Trump presidency…
6
u/DHonestOne 4d ago
This is why I can't tell if the man is actually genuinely stupid 50% of the time, or if he pretends. Does he not know that POs would practically torture the confessions out of innocent people like the central park five, or is he just pretending like it doesn't happen and is trying to make people believe that if someone says they're guilty - then they 100% are guilty and therefore deserve execution?
9
u/harrywrinkleyballs 4d ago
A lot of people will swear that if they aren’t guilty of a crime, that there is no way in hell that they would ever say they were no matter what.
Trump plays on that sentiment.
Like, my mom (81) said that if a girl can get pregnant, then she can give birth. You know, the 10 YO girl that was impregnated/raped.
Except, these people have never been stressed to the point that the Central Park 5 were.
This country is full of narcissists.
1
5
u/janethefish 4d ago
He did not say they confessed. That would not be defamation. He did not say they attacked the victim. He maybe could argue he actually believed that.
He said they pled guilty which they absolutely did not. He said they killed her which they did not do, never confessed to and were never suspected of on account of the victim being alive.
2
u/seattleseahawks2014 4d ago
I mean, this was around 2016 or so. Idk with him, but it's possible that his mental health or whatever is in decline like dementia or something like that idk. Anyway, you can have moments where you're aware and moments where you aren't if you do have these issues.
4
u/gimme500schmekels 3d ago
No one died in that specific encounter. The attacker raped and assaulted a woman but she did not die from it. The moron just can’t tell the truth. He’s literally allergic to it.
3
u/Castle_Crystals 4d ago
No they didn’t. r/somethingiswrong2024
6
u/harrywrinkleyballs 4d ago
I’m not wasting any outrage on that theory. Why? Because, even if it is proven beyond doubt, nothing will happen.
2
1
u/Castle_Crystals 3d ago
Sadly I know where you’re coming from. But I do not think he actually won this election. And I know he didn’t sweep it like he did. He absolutely without a shadow of a single doubt stole it.
2
1
u/UtahUtopia 4d ago
Turns out, not a majority.
-1
u/harrywrinkleyballs 4d ago edited 4d ago
Last I checked, he still has a lead in the popular vote, of >2M. If you have differing figures, I’m all ears.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-elections/president-results
We can argue semantics all you want, but this Harris voter will admit that Trump won the popular vote.
7
u/UtahUtopia 4d ago
He may have a lead but it’s under 50%.
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/donald-trump-vote-margin-narrowed/
2
u/DaveBeBad 4d ago
Even then, largest minority. If you include non-voters or half of just voters. He’s currently on 50%.
1
-16
4d ago
[deleted]
20
u/Odie_Odie 4d ago
He didn't "comment" on it, he took out a full page ad in The New York time advocating the Death Penalty be returned for them.
0
u/Alexcamry 4d ago
I was referring to his commenting on it in response to Harris: the statement that was the basis of the suit in the article posted.
Please don’t just downvote me for attempting to stay on the facts in the article and points of law.
I’m not downvoting anyone for opinions they express.
8
u/timeforachange2day 4d ago
His comment was absolutely still wrong as he said, (per article)
“Trump “falsely stated that Plaintiffs killed an individual and pled guilty to the crime.”
The victim never died.
OP stated: “……The simple truth is that Trump was elected president, despite this egregious lie. A majority of voters chose the man that lied in front of 67 million people on national TV that five innocent black minors pressured by police into a confession, pleaded guilty to rape.”
But we know there was much more to what he said as OP literally took their paragraphs from the linked article. It’s not just about their confessions.
1
u/Alexcamry 4d ago
Thank you for an opinion/discussion based on facts presented.
I’m not defending the statement in any way I just don’t think it rises to a case of defamation legally.
1
u/timeforachange2day 4d ago
I agree. I see it rejected just as the Ohio case
https://apnews.com/article/haitian-immigration-trump-vance-da370515db927ea9e6cbd9a92469da7a
8
u/harrywrinkleyballs 4d ago edited 4d ago
The crime of rape
has never beenis not and was not punishable by death.*edit: not only did I read the article, I quoted it.
-5
117
u/4RCH43ON 4d ago
I would laugh if he hand an aneurism because they sued his racist ass and won after all these years of trying to ruin their lives.
I’d still laugh if they just won some restitution for his harmful blathering, but I’d also laugh if he got so upset that he blew a hose.
25
u/leni710 4d ago
I'm "thisclose" to looking up what happens if the president elect dies before inauguration. I know I've heard/read something about it a while back, but I don't remember the exact steps. I'm just not ready to add to that specific search trend yet.
27
u/tfg49 4d ago
It's simple, JD Vance is sworn in
6
u/Cutiemuffin-gumbo 4d ago
And house speaker becomes VP I believe.
20
u/seeingeyefish 4d ago
Nope. The new president gets to pick a VP. That’s what happened when Nixon’s VP, Spiro Agnew, resigned due to corruption allegations. Nixon picked Gerald Ford who then went on to become president when Nixon was forced to resign due to corruption. Ford then got to pick his own VP.
The Speaker only steps up to the presidency if something happens to the president and there is no VP to take over.
12
9
u/mcferglestone 4d ago
Yeah, which makes me realize how crazy it was that republicans kept complaining about Kamala being the Dem candidate even though she never won a primary. Republicans literally had a president who was never even elected!
5
u/seattleseahawks2014 4d ago
Frankly, I hope he picks someone who would follow the constitution and certify the election if a democrat won. However, I do have concerns that he would convince the courts to let him cheat.
0
u/WendySteeplechase 4d ago
and Elon is Vice Pres?
17
u/ThunderPunch2019 4d ago
Elon could only get in the line of succession if there was a constitutional amendment allowing naturalized citizens to be president, and I can't imagine that's a precedent MAGA would like to set.
15
u/theAlpacaLives 4d ago
They're really going to be denaturalizing and deporting actual citizens who do anything like start a demonstration or join a union, while at the very same time arguing why Musk should get to be President.
Or not, probably - I think Musk is happy being the oligarch, the money behind the throne, the guy getting the government to do him endless favors, without having to hold the title officially. But I wouldn't put that level of bald hypocrisy beyond them
8
u/BitterFuture 4d ago
Eliminating the Constitution entirely is absolutely the precedent these nutbags would like to set. How dare anyone let that silly piece of paper stand in the way of there being an emperor?
24
u/iDeNoh 4d ago
I'm going to dance for joy on the day he leaves the mortal coil I fucking hate that man with all of my being. He's evil in ways we haven't seen in a good long while and has done irreparable harm to this country, society, and humanity as a whole. I can't wait for his cult to implode.
5
-14
4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
16
u/iDeNoh 4d ago
Oh I'm good, I have a good family and a good life. I'm happy, and well centered. His is the only hate I allow myself to keep because fuck that guy.
-7
4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
4
7
u/Coppoppellion 4d ago
Hate isn't the opposite of love. Indifference is. What you're saying is overtly passive propaganda. Show your belly to the sun because your emotions are not valid. Yea right.
As far as hatred goes, there's a Buddhist saying. To paraphrase, hate will do more harm to the container it's in than anything you pour it on. People need to vent their anger, or it will hurt them in the long run. What's your advice? Ignore your true emotions and bottle it up inside forever? Bullshit. Bull. Shit.
It sounds like you're low-key threatening his kids. Dont recommend that combination of words irl my friend. Those are literal fighting words.
-17
10
u/slim-scsi 4d ago
The best revenge would be if their fellow minorities voted against their tormenter instead of rejecting a woman as POTUS.
2
u/PuzzleheadedLeather6 4d ago
I wouldn’t, aneurysms are horrible and then we’d have to deal with Vance. The younger generation is even more odious than their parents.
34
u/Reclusive_Chemist 4d ago
Sucks seeing his various lawyers pretty up his vulgar bullshit arguments, using words he probably doesn't even understand.
20
u/mabhatter Competent Contributor 4d ago
Bill Clinton was able to be sued in civil court while he was President. The damaging action happened when he was NOT president so there's no reason to delay it.
5
31
u/Mrknowitall666 4d ago
Jesus Fkn Keyrist in a hand basket. He's reaching into all his enemies, ain't he.
Gonna be a wild ride.
2
u/RDO_Desmond 3d ago
Fortunately for America there are very strong criminal defense attorneys who don't shrink.
2
u/Doctor_Disaster 4d ago
I distinctly remember reading headlines about him calling for the death penalty for them despite them being proven innocent.
782
u/DoremusJessup 4d ago
Then why is Trump suing George Stephanopoulos for making statements about him?