Even if he doesn't win, imagine what will come out in discovery. They don't want that and will probably settle.

deddog said:

---

Charpie said:

---

To prove this, he would have had to lose the election, no?

1st amendment be damned.

---

He's suing in his private capacity, which he is entitled to do.
This has nothing to do with the 1st amendment.

---

CBS will use the first amendment as a defense in their motion to dismiss. So it does kind of matter.

deddog said:

---

Charpie said:

---

To prove this, he would have had to lose the election, no?

1st amendment be damned.

---

He's suing in his private capacity, which he is entitled to do.
This has nothing to do with the 1st amendment.

---

the first amendment as as defense is what she is referring to.

if successful on that defense, the media outlets can use it to escape having a judgment entered against it by a Court.

that does not mean they will be successful on that defense, but that's the relevant issue as the first amendment is concerned. we don't even know the claims yet, so no one can say what might happen.

Not a real big fan of this, but maybe the play is to get them to lay off the lies and hyper-negativity for a couple months with the suit pending.

It's big boy politics reality nowadays, if you run as a Republican and are perceived as a real threat you will be labeled a rapist/hitler/racist/fraud by the MSM. Although I wouldn't want that vitriol to drive someone to shoot at me, it also electorally probably put him over the top (plus Kamala being as dumb as a coconut that fell from a tree). From a purely legal perspective, he might have an argument that the lies have harmed his businesses though, which I wouldn't expect he could get some data on to support it (customer feedback for example based on whether they have watched ABC Nightly News or 60 minutes in the past 90 days).

The only good thing really I anticipate about this is that it is yet one more indication Trump is playing offense, period, moving into next year.

Charpie said:

---

To prove this, he would have had to lose the election, no?

1st amendment be damned.

---

CBS will need to produce the entire unedited 60minutes puff piece on Harris. That alone will be worth the cost of a trial/investigation.

Gigem_94 said:

---

Even if he doesn't win, imagine what will come out in discovery. They don't want that and will probably settle.

---

bad news for Trump.

every time someone says this on texags, the lawsuit fizzles.

He ought to be thanking the legacy media. Their smug out-of-touch elitism almost certainly flipped some votes his way.

Fix the country. Screw the stupid lib media.

I didn't vote for a vendetta playing out.

I voted for a halt to inflation, removing dangerous illegals, tighter border security, states' rights, reducing foreign aid, stopping radical activist indoctrination, upholding the Constitution among a few other normal Conservative tenets.

The longer the suit doesn't get thrown out, the longer it may make the MSM think about how they cover his second administration. I think he's just buying a little extra leeway here.

SPF250 said:

---

The longer the suit doesn't get thrown out, the longer it may make the MSM think about how they cover his second administration. I think he's just buying a little extra leeway here.

---

thats a coffee spitter right there.

Al Bula said:

---

Fix the country. Screw the stupid lib media.

I didn't vote for a vendetta playing out.

I voted for a halt to inflation, removing dangerous illegals, tighter border security, states' rights, reducing foreign aid, stopping radical activist indoctrination, upholding the Constitution among a few other normal Conservative tenets.

---

All those things were and will be again enabled because the media no longer serves as gov't watchdogs.

BMX Bandit said:

---

deddog said:

---

Charpie said:

---

To prove this, he would have had to lose the election, no?

1st amendment be damned.

---

He's suing in his private capacity, which he is entitled to do.
This has nothing to do with the 1st amendment.

---

the first amendment as as defense is what she is referring to.

if successful on that defense, the media outlets can use it to escape having a judgment entered against it by a Court.

that does not mean they will be successful on that defense, but that's the relevant issue as the first amendment is concerned. we don't even know the claims yet, so no one can say what might happen.

---

I don't think that's what the poster meant. "1st amendment be damned" implies Trump doesn't care about the first amendment .

I can see why liberals would use this as a defense, because they are all about dehumanizing and slandering anyone opposed to them.

If he wins, he should demand payment in Bitcoin.....

Soooo who said taking my Rams salary in bitcoin was dumb again? 🤔🤫😌 pic.twitter.com/7ZPJtRm2gG

— Odell Beckham Jr (@obj) November 13, 2024

Charpie said:

---

To prove this, he would have had to lose the election, no?

1st amendment be damned.

---

Explain how this would violate the 1st amendment.

It's about discovery. Let's see all comms with the DNC, Kamala campaign, or Obama.

Or as part of settlement, they all have to admit they lied to the American people.

FTAG 2000 said:

---

Or as part of settlement, they all have to admit they lied to the American people.

---

let us know how that turns out.

Al Bula said:

---

Fix the country. Screw the stupid lib media.

I didn't vote for a vendetta playing out.

I voted for a halt to inflation, removing dangerous illegals, tighter border security, states' rights, reducing foreign aid, stopping radical activist indoctrination, upholding the Constitution among a few other normal Conservative tenets.

---

The media fig leaf for marxism and lawfare is among the most serious problems America faces today. Millions of people are misinformed because of their lies.

BMX Bandit said:

---

SPF250 said:

---

The longer the suit doesn't get thrown out, the longer it may make the MSM think about how they cover his second administration. I think he's just buying a little extra leeway here.

---

thats a coffee spitter right there.

---

I know, I know. But when you're playing around the margins, even a tiny bit every now and then could help.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

DTP02 said:

---

I don't see the point in this. It's next to impossible to win these suits for someone like Trump.

---

Nah. It'd be easy. Just file it in Abilene.

---

There are some pretty red counties in the valley now, they are known for their favorability to the wronged. And he is good with most of the Hispanics.

Funny someone thinks this is a 1st amendment issue.

Only a 1st amendment issue when convenient for one party...

You are free to say what you want, but slander someone you can still get sued.

You can say they are an a**hole, you can't say they are an a**hole who took payments under the table or an a**hole who was doing something illegal.

HTH...

FTAG 2000 said:

---

It's about discovery. Let's see all comms with the DNC, Kamala campaign, or Obama.

Or as part of settlement, they all have to admit they lied to the American people.

---

Agree with this.

If during discovery they find that the Biden administration was issuing talking points to the media to slander Trump and prop up Biden and Kamala, which EVERYONE knows both happened, then it further discredits them.

I doubt he cares if he gets money out of the deal. This is punitive damages to teach a lesson to future media.

BMX Bandit said:

---

deddog said:

---

Charpie said:

---

To prove this, he would have had to lose the election, no?

1st amendment be damned.

---

He's suing in his private capacity, which he is entitled to do.
This has nothing to do with the 1st amendment.

---

the first amendment as as defense is what she is referring to.

if successful on that defense, the media outlets can use it to escape having a judgment entered against it by a Court.

that does not mean they will be successful on that defense, but that's the relevant issue as the first amendment is concerned. we don't even know the claims yet, so no one can say what might happen.

---

Thanks

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

That motive would be hard to reconcile against a free speech initiative.

---

Freedom of speech still has the stipulation that you can't openly lie and cause a problem.. "FIRE" shouted in a theater is still illegal.

They've clearly been paid to sell garbage lies. Fox is no different, and it is a problem.

Charpie said:

---

To prove this, he would have had to lose the election, no?

1st amendment be damned.

---

Imagine hiding behind the 1st Amendment when constantly spouting lies and generating the character of others.

Instead of suing them, haul the major players in the media in for congressional hearings as this is a matter of national concern. If we have no trust in the main news outlets, anyone can spew anything and they may have the same credibility as the major players. Who in the media do you trust now.

Signel said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

That motive would be hard to reconcile against a free speech initiative.

---

Freedom of speech still has the stipulation that you can't openly lie and cause a problem.. "FIRE" shouted in a theater is still illegal.

They've clearly been paid to sell garbage lies. Fox is no different, and it is a problem.

---

This is a giant pile of fake news. There are many times yelling "fire" in a theater is perfectly legal.
https://www.thefire.org/news/popehat-medias-most-common-pro-censorship-tropes

cevans_40 said:

---

Charpie said:

---

To prove this, he would have had to lose the election, no?

1st amendment be damned.

---

Imagine hiding behind the 1st Amendment when constantly spouting lies and generating the character of others.

---

If the lies are actionable, then sue. In the CBS case, it's very likely they aren't.

fredfredunderscorefred said:

---

Charpie said:

---

RikkiTikkaTagem said:

---

Charpie said:

---

To prove this, he would have had to lose the election, no?

1st amendment be damned.

---

Or I don't know, somebody maybe trying to kill him…twice

---

That's on the media? Using your logic, all the crap being said about the other side would have the exact same merit.

This just feels like a really slippery slope, that's all.

---

Alex jones gets sued for hurting feelings and is bankrupt now after a billion dollars awarded
Trump denies accusations from a certified loon making 40 year old allegations with no facts to back them up..sued for slander

Etc etc. all "1st amendment be damned"

The left has put more oil on this slippery slope than at a diddy freak off

---

Exactly what I was going to say.

I'm no AJ fan, but this is exactly what they nailed him for.

They told stories of his listeners peeing on graves, etc...and held him accountable for their actions...even though he never told anyone to do those things. All because he questioned if Sandy Hook was real or fake. Maybe it's a dumb opinion, but being dumb isn't against the law.

What's worse, peeing at a gravesite or trying to murder a President?

Compare the defamation that legacy media continually lobbed at Trump with what Alex Jones did. It's difficult to say one should bankrupt a media source while the other should not.

Oops, I didn't see there was a page 2 when I posted.

Jack Boyette said:

---

Charpie said:

---

RikkiTikkaTagem said:

---

Charpie said:

---

To prove this, he would have had to lose the election, no?

1st amendment be damned.

---

Or I don't know, somebody maybe trying to kill him…twice

---

That's on the media? Using your logic, all the crap being said about the other side would have the exact same merit.

This just feels like a really slippery slope, that's all.

---

Except it doesn't "happen on both sides." These networks have knowingly lied, defamed, and attempted to ruin him for years, and were paid to do it.

---

Exactly. Discovery could be a ***** for those *******s.

BMX Bandit said:

---

FTAG 2000 said:

---

Or as part of settlement, they all have to admit they lied to the American people.

---

let us know how that turns out.

---

There's prefeeent from the Sandman case. They don't have to say they lied but admitting their stories weren't rooted in fact would be enough.

Calling someone Hitler and then saying 'oh first amendment!' Is bull*****

FTAG 2000 said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

FTAG 2000 said:

---

Or as part of settlement, they all have to admit they lied to the American people.

---

let us know how that turns out.

---

There's prefeeent from the Sandman case. They don't have to say they lied but admitting their stories weren't rooted in fact would be enough.

Calling someone Hitler and then saying 'oh first amendment!' Is bull*****

---

It's not bull****, because calling someone Hitler is an opinion, and opinions are protected speech.