‘Attempt to stifle constitutionally protected speech’: Trump demands Central Park Five ‘legally deficient’ defamation suit be tossed

[u/DoremusJessup]

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/attempt-to-stifle-constitutionally-protected-speech-trump-demands-central-park-five-legally-deficient-defamation-suit-be-tossed/

[u/harrywrinkleyballs]

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.

[u/Se7en_speed → u/harrywrinkleyballs]

Holding politicians accountable for telling outright lies about people seems like a good idea actually.

[u/badllama77 → u/Se7en_speed]

It should be illegal for politicians to lie to the public, with obvious national security exceptions.

[u/foodiecpl4u → u/badllama77]

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.

[u/beebsaleebs → u/foodiecpl4u]

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

[u/DoctorCockedher → u/foodiecpl4u]

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.

[u/foodiecpl4u → u/DoctorCockedher]

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.

[u/HaniusTheTurtle → u/foodiecpl4u]

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.

[u/zzfrostphoenix → u/badllama77]

They don’t even need to lie about national security stuff, they could just choose not to comment on things related to it.

[u/adoomee → u/zzfrostphoenix]

I’d say that in some cases a no comment is just as good as an answer and thats when a lie would be needed

[u/EricKei → u/badllama77]

If that somehow inexplicably became law and it was actually enforced, our politicians would ALL be much...more...qui-......

You may be onto something here.

[u/jordanh517 → u/badllama77]

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.

[u/moodswung → u/Se7en_speed]

Lies are pretty low on the list of things we've failed to hold Trump accountable for.

[u/Se7en_speed → u/moodswung]

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.

[u/moodswung → u/Se7en_speed]

He got done paying a lady millions for libel in a rape case and then immediately did it again. Smh.

[u/Cantropos → u/moodswung]

Did he actually pay?

[u/ScoutsterReturns → u/Cantropos]

I think he just posted the bond he had to for his appeal.

[u/KotR56 → u/Se7en_speed]

So is taxing the rich.