The Federalist Party in 1798 responded to the vitriol of the 1796 elections and succeeding years, with the Alien and Sedition Acts, signed with some reluctance (and unusually poor judgment) by John Adams. The Sedition Act made it a federal crime to make false statements critical of the federal government or its officials.
The Sedition Act was broadly criticized, and was one of the key factors in Thomas Jefferson's victory over Adams in 1800. To this day, when we hear about nations that have passed such laws, we shake our heads at the insecurity of autocracies that seek to suppress, not just libel, but criticism of any kind. Banana Republics, we say, or petty dictatorships, or the sort of things the Commies do.
And then there's Donald Trump. He's cheesed off at what he considers unfair treatment from some of the media (those not lobbing him softball questions), and promises to expand libel laws to get those mean people if he's elected as president. Of course, libel is only a civil matter, not a criminal one, but does anyone doubt that a Citizen Trump wouldn't love to see a new Sedition Law — once he's in office?
(The author of the article notes that libel law actually covers just what Trump is complaining about — intentional and malicious falsehood — but Trump's not that stupid, and nobody in his position doesn't understand libel law. He's simply looking to chill press coverage, especially with not-so-veiled threats about what's going to happen to unfriendly press when he's in charge.)
Donald Trump just declared his intent to destroy American democracy
What Donald Trump doesn’t know about First Amendment law
The forth estate is already dead, they protect the multinationals running interference by distracting us from important news with trash tv
Hate to say it, but the media should have been fighting harder to maintain some sort of illusion of objectivity. As it stands today, the de-evolution of journalism into sensationalized corporate propaganda has helped demagogues like Trump in his ascendancy.
+Philipp Giddings I don't think it's quite as straightforward as all that, and while there's certainly a lot of "fluff" news — there always has been.
Forth estate is dead because news now has to be profitable
Fluff aside
+Philipp Giddings When has the Fourth Estate ever not had to be profitable? I'm not aware of an historic movement of mendicant journalists.
But how is Trump's stated intention to muzzle and/or punish 'mean' journalists any different from the intent of those who wish to stop any speech that anyone, anywhere could, for whatever reason, potentially find objectionable ?
Despite being virtually identical in their stated aims (the only difference being which group the acts are intended to 'protect'._ ) the main difference being that while one suggestion (quite correctly) gets universally trashed as the insane ravings of a madman, the latter gets wide and sycophantically gushing media support as a welcome and necessary measure to protect specific identity-politics pressure groups ?
Of course they are mean to him he's a stupid ugly ass jerk
The media made him more famous then ever.
+Scott Thornton Your right to a certain point, but what people don't seem to understand is, Trump supporters never have never fallen for the media propaganda. It's exactly the opposite. It's the liberal community that has fallen into the trap. Your comment seems to infer that it's palpable to allow the media to fool the people if it results in the political outcome that suits your particular beliefs. Hitler used the same methods to gain support over Europe as have dozens of other dictators. The ends always justify the means in your way of thinking. I think the "The People" should decide in a free, open and honest election. Sadly, our system is so corrupt with money and greed that the only recourse is to vote an uncoruptable man into office to purge the system.
+Dave Hill Ever hear of The Fairness Doctrine
en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press
Vladimir Lenin, Lenin's Collected Works, Volume 32, pp. 504–509.
Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one. Five Multinational companies own 90+% of thew media in this country as profit is a corporations only objective I do not see how the media nes here can be trusted to Inform Americans about what is best for Americans only what is best for their own interests and profits
+Dave Hill News was only fifteeen minutes long at its outset on CBS in the 40s plenty of time for commercials the rest of the broadcast.
Little more than corporist propaganda now with every new Iphone release being a news story.
Sad for true journalism, because we can't know the truth!
+Jose Velazquez Trump is wildly newsworthy because he does such zany things. Would the average person be more interested in hearing Politician X talk about farm policy, or Donald Trump accuse Mexico of harboring Muslim terror camps? It's irresponsible, but, yes, it's the kind of thing that viewers watch and therefore sponsors look for to maximize network ad revenue.
+Philipp Giddings So consolidation of press ownership (the diffusion of information broadcast on the Internet notwithstanding) is a different matter, and, yes, that's more than a bit worrisome.
+Dave Hill Thank you