Amber IS the funniest girls name.
Trump wants America to be like England, "where you can actually sue if someone says something wrong"
1 Like
I disagree. You can tell by the look on his face that he knows he’s lying. Anyone who ever babysat would know that look.
6 Likes
Money is not speech however money can buy speech as it can many other things. This is why the court did not use that equivalency. If it had then it would’ve said that corporate contributions to Federal candidates was protected speech. Corporate speech is not necessarily a product of more wealth than personal speech. There are wealthy corporations as well as poor ones. Just about anybody can create a corporation for a few hundred dollars. But there are many things besides money which give people more influence on people’s decisions on who to vote for. Among these are celebrity, position, and popular expertise. Where do we draw the line on forced equality of speech?
Yes, there are significant differences between the Sierra Club and a for-profit corporation. Congress attempted to determine which corporations would be allowed to engage in speech promoting/opposing a candidate by limiting it to media corporations or to corporations with prior permission from the government. The Court found this was too arbitrary a distinction–that Congress had failed to make a clear distinction and the reasons for doing so. From reading the decision it seems to me that the Court just seemed to challenge Congress to come up with a constitutional way to determine why some corporations are allowed this speech and some aren’t.
Some corporations do have a lot of money but the executives have to show that their expenditures are for the profit of the corporation otherwise they can be sued by the shareholders and also diminish the value of the stock.
Perhaps what we are discussing is really moot. I don’t know of any corporation whose primary business is other than media and political commentary has actually taken advantage of the CU v FEC decision by campaigning for or against any Federal candidate. Does anyone else reading this know of one?
I’m calling Poe’s Law; is this a transcription or satire?
1 Like
Legal protections for corporations mean most dark money spending never has to be publicly disclosed. You’re asking for evidence that’s hidden by design. We can see changes in electoral outcomes post-Citizens United, though:
7 Likes
The other good thing about British libel laws is that they “[afford] little or no protection to those who have, or deserve to have, no reputation deserving of legal protection”
These are the words of the judge in the case where professional goalkeeper Bruce Grobbelaar sued the Sun over allegations that he had taken money to deliberately let in goals. The judge ruled that the newspaper had libelled him as they couldn’t prove that he had let in any goals deliberately, but could prove that he had taken the money.
He was awarded damages “commensurate to the value of the reputation he lost”- £1.
3 Likes
sounds like a random generator idea!
4 Likes
Trump can sue in the UK courts now. The NYT is published in the UK, he can sue.
The reason he is unlikely to is that he would be liable for the defendant’s costs when he lost.
2 Likes
Loss of reputation after a failed libel action was the beginning of Oscar Wilde’s downfall. Of course, the context was a bit different.
3 Likes
That was rather a long time ago, since when we’ve had the Reform Act and our monarchs cannot start unpopular wars any more. Nowadays we wait to be told by the US which country we should invade.
One thing Trump doesn’t realise: if he loses a libel case in England, he could have costs awarded against him. If he wins and the judge thinks it’s a bit iffy, he still won’t get his costs. The McLibel case cost a certain fast food company (which I personally would never patronise even if I was dehydrated and starving) a lot of money and a large Streisand Effect, since when large corporations have actually steered clear of libel cases. Since 2013 and the anti-reputation-manager law reform, libel cases have gone rather quiet.
5 Likes
There’s also the less well-known lawsuit against Ruskin brought by Whistler. Whistler ultimately won but the award of only a farthing and the split court costs devastated him financially.
These should be cautionary tales to anyone who thinks the British courts will make it easier to destroy their enemies.
4 Likes
Basically the verdict was a suggestion that they should have settled out of court. But the case certainly helped start the public perception of sue-happy Americans. Gentlemen, of course, would never have sued in such a case because poor old Ruskin didn’t quite have his wits about him and you don’t kick a man when he’s down.
Trump seems determined to keep the stereotype of the sue-happy non-gentleman American businessman alive and well.
[edit - as I recall - I am very old - Punch reported the case like this:
“I sits and paints
Has no complaints
And sell before I’m dry
Then savage Ruskin
Sticks his tusk in
And nobody will buy.”]
1 Like
I think we should be more like England in gun regulation.
2 Likes
And perhaps police training.
(yes, I know that UK cops aren’t paragons either, but it would be a step in the right direction)
3 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
