Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!

Trump sues New York Times

Discussion in 'GatorNana's Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by rivergator, Feb 26, 2020.

  1. ajoseph

    ajoseph Premium Member

    2,205
    447
    328
    Jan 15, 2008
    Because the burden of proof is borne on the first instance by the plaintiff. In a libel suit of a public person, the plaintiff must prove that the article is false, and is made with conscious disregard of the truth. It is a very difficult burden to meet, particularly when the article is a self-described opinion piece, which by definition is someone’s thoughts, as opposed to a fact. And opinions are protected by the first amendment, regardless of the accuracy of such opinion.
     
    • Winner Winner x 5
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. rivergator

    rivergator Too Hot Mod Moderator

    30,739
    1,076
    1,893
    Apr 8, 2007
    Come on. As Phil just pointed, Trump is the plaintiff and the NYT is the defendant. You figure defendants should have to prove they're not guilty rather than the accuser prove he is?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Gatorrick22

    Gatorrick22 GC Hall of Fame

    64,330
    10,401
    2,373
    Apr 3, 2007
    So, the Paper says Trump did this or that and Trump has the burden of proof to disprove it in court? Lol... that sounds like some U.S.S.R. crap there. Man the News Papers can ruin lives even before these people have a chance to disproves the lies printed against them. If that's the law then I should be changed.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
  4. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    8,227
    823
    658
    Dec 9, 2010
    Yes, if you sue somebody for purposefully printing false information, you need to prove that the information is false.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
  5. Gatorrick22

    Gatorrick22 GC Hall of Fame

    64,330
    10,401
    2,373
    Apr 3, 2007
    The "defendant" in this case, that printed false dispersion against someone else. Yeah, they sound like to ones that need protecting. Please...
     
  6. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    8,227
    823
    658
    Dec 9, 2010
    I guess free speech really isn't important to you then. Because if it was, you would want the burden to be on the person arguing against free speech. Regardless, you have to change the entire nature of our legal system, which is that you are not guilty by assumption. You are arguing that the newspaper should be guilty by assumption.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  7. Gatorrick22

    Gatorrick22 GC Hall of Fame

    64,330
    10,401
    2,373
    Apr 3, 2007
    Don't they have to prove their side too in a count of law? If not then that is some straight up crap...
     
  8. rivergator

    rivergator Too Hot Mod Moderator

    30,739
    1,076
    1,893
    Apr 8, 2007
    Rick, you really need to look at this from a legal viewpoint.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    8,227
    823
    658
    Dec 9, 2010
    Again, if the charge is that they printed something false, you need to prove that it is false. You don't get to just claim it is false and have everybody nod in agreement.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    8,227
    823
    658
    Dec 9, 2010
    Think of it like this: should Trump have to prove that he didn't rape the women that accused him of rape in their civil suit against him or should they have to prove that he did?

    You are currently arguing that the first should be the legal standard. Are you comfortable with that both ways?
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Creative Creative x 1
  11. ajoseph

    ajoseph Premium Member

    2,205
    447
    328
    Jan 15, 2008
    No, not really. The plaintiff must prove that The NY Times not only published something false, but did so while knowing, and ignoring, the facts. Only if the plaintiff meets that high burden does The NY Times need to prove Anything at all.
     
  12. Gatorrick22

    Gatorrick22 GC Hall of Fame

    64,330
    10,401
    2,373
    Apr 3, 2007
    I'm not saying that. What I am saying is that once it's in the courtroom then the "defendant" should show their proof that they printed facts, complete with actual sources, and not just made-up lies... hearsay.
     
  13. AzCatFan

    AzCatFan GC Hall of Fame

    7,627
    346
    288
    Apr 9, 2007
    The truth shall set you free. If Trump is suing for damages, and the NYT piece was false and damaged Trump, then it will settled in court. Trump, as plaintiff, will have to prove it was false and damaging, and the NYT, as defendant, will have the task of defending the story as either true or not damaging to Trump. This is how our adversarial court system works. Trump just can't say it was all a lie and then get whatever he wants without proving his case in court.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    8,227
    823
    658
    Dec 9, 2010
    And that is why they would depose Trump. They would be seeking to provide evidence of the truth of their claims. However, the burden of proof (and this is civil not criminal so the threshold is lower) is still on the accuser that is trying to claim that somebody wronged them.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. Gatorrick22

    Gatorrick22 GC Hall of Fame

    64,330
    10,401
    2,373
    Apr 3, 2007

    What if the NYT prints hearsay from an ANONYMOUS source about possible crime? How the hail do that go down? Shouldn't both sides need some sort of credible proof? I mean if the paper invents a story with NO real credible source and Trump cannot disprove that how is the paper allowed to not have to prove their side? Hearsey is not factual in a court of law.
     
  16. OklahomaGator

    OklahomaGator Jedi Administrator Moderator VIP Member

    76,101
    37,372
    3,128
    Apr 3, 2007
    He won the election, what would the damage be?
     
    • Wish I would have said that Wish I would have said that x 2
  17. Gatorrick22

    Gatorrick22 GC Hall of Fame

    64,330
    10,401
    2,373
    Apr 3, 2007
    They both should be compelled to provide facts in the their case. And if the Paper shows none (or hearsay/rumors) then that should be enough, IMHO...

    But I'm pretty sure that Trump can win against some of these other so-called News outlets like CNN or MSNBC. How can they prove that Trump is a Russian asset or in league with Putin after all the investigations DISPROVED it.

    Some of these other news agencies are in big trouble if he decides to sue them.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  18. Gatorrick22

    Gatorrick22 GC Hall of Fame

    64,330
    10,401
    2,373
    Apr 3, 2007
    defamation of character in order to sway an up coming election? Don't forget how that how Russia collusion delusion all started... These News agencies spread rumors from a falsified "opposition research" paper bought for in part by the DNC and Hillary Clinton...
     
  19. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    8,227
    823
    658
    Dec 9, 2010
    Okay, then if he can't prove he didn't rape people, then they should be able to successfully sue him for calling them liars by that standard, even if they can't prove that he raped them, correct?

    They would have to provide information in discovery and open themselves up for depositions as well. But so would Trump, as he has to actually provide a basis by which to consider what they said false.

    The investigations did no such thing.

    No, they really aren't. Again, no way does he ever go under oath on this topic. His lawyers were smart enough to make sure that didn't happen with Mueller. No way do they let it happen here.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  20. swampbabe

    swampbabe GC Hall of Fame

    1,976
    494
    428
    Apr 8, 2007
    Viera, FL
    Stop digging
     
    • Agree Agree x 1