RSN Fundraising Banner
Trump Complains That Negative Coverage of Him 'Can't Be Legal' and 'Should Be Tested in Courts'
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=48680"><span class="small">Frank Dale, ThinkProgress</span></a>   
Monday, 17 December 2018 14:44

Dale writes: "President Donald Trump started off his Sunday by suggesting the media should have to answer in court for the 'nothing less than unfair news coverage' that he is subjected to."

Saturday Night Live Weekend Update co-host Colin Jost. (photo: SNL)
Saturday Night Live Weekend Update co-host Colin Jost. (photo: SNL)

Trump Complains That Negative Coverage of Him 'Can't Be Legal' and 'Should Be Tested in Courts'

By Frank Dale, ThinkProgress

17 December 18

Is Trump complaining about his depiction on Saturday Night Live to distract from a difficult week?

resident Donald Trump started off his Sunday by suggesting the media should have to answer in court for the “nothing less than unfair news coverage” that he is subjected to.

Trump cited in particular NBC and the network’s Saturday Night Live sketch comedy show, tweeting, “Should be tested in courts, can’t be legal?”

The president, not known for his command of civics, might not be familiar with the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which says “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”

Trump has made a habit of using Twitter to threaten the libel laws that prevent the reporting of knowingly false information.

Trump also suggested NBC’s broadcasting license could be at risk in a September tweet even though “there is little that he or his administration could do to carry out the threat.”

ThinkProgress reached out out to NBC for comment but had not received a response at the time of publication.

ThinkProgress’ Ryan Koronowski has detailed Trump’s history of displeasure with laws that protect the media.

In 2016, Trump was asked if the First Amendment provided “too much protection.” He lamented that “our press is allowed to say whatever they want,” and explained why he preferred libel laws in the United Kingdom, where someone suing a media company has a better chance of prevailing because a defendant in a libel case must prove their statements are true. In the U.S., the plaintiff must prove a statement is false, and that the statement was made with deliberate, malicious intent.
In April 2017, then-White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus said that the administration had “looked at” changing libel laws.

Trump’s administration also revoked the White House credential of CNN’s Jim Acosta last month, using a doctored video to explain the reporter’s ban for the “inappropriate behavior” of not letting an aide rip a microphone out of his hands. A Trump-appointed judge later restored Acosta’s White House access.

Legal scholar Jennifer Taub reacted to Trump’s tweet by suggesting he read the First Amendment, which the president has previously claimed “nobody loves” more than him.

The president’s remarks follow a difficult week for the White House that included the revelation federal prosecutors are investigating his inaugural committee, the revelation of his shady deal with the National Enquirer to push propaganda during the 2016 election, the sentencing of his former attorney — Michael Cohen — to three years in prison amid the allegation that Trump — or “Individual 1” — directed a felony, settling for an interim chief of staff after being turned down by his top choices, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) fact-checking Trump in the Oval Office, and a Senate vote to rebuke his administration and end U.S. support for Saudi Arabia in Yemen.

The Washington Post reported on Saturday that “nearly every organization (Trump) has led in the past decade is under investigation.”

After the president spent much of his Saturday on Twitter attacking the media and celebrating the demise of the conservative Weekly Standard, the New York Times’ Maggie Haberman wondered how reporters are supposed to provide “positive” coverage of Trump’s recent scandals.

Email This Page your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+21 # indian weaving 2018-12-17 15:23
No negative news about Trump means no news at all, seems to me. What is good about this guy anyhow? Nothing.
+1 # MikeAF48 2018-12-17 21:21
He just wants to take it to the streets but the American people are smarter than that.
+3 # tedrey 2018-12-18 06:36
The media have to tell little bits of the truth once in a while to keep the public interested. If they ever told it all, government, business, the military, and society would be done for. For good.
+8 # Texas Aggie 2018-12-18 07:49
So now Individual 1 has come out in favor of the fairness doctrine. What will Faux Noise, Breitbart and all the rest of them have to say about that?
+1 # lfeuille 2018-12-18 20:37
Just more evidence that Trump has no use for the constitution. We knew that already. It is frustrating to have to keep fighting to keep him from doing things that are blatantly unconstitutiona l. It takes effort that would better be directed elsewhere but can't be because if we ignore him he might get away with this crap. Another reason to get rid of him sooner rather than later. But not everyone who recognizes this as a blatant first amendment violation can see that they same applies to Wikileaks and efforts to prosecute Assange. You can't condemn one without condemning the other.