News commentary is focusing on the coming presidential election and whether the Republican candidate will still be eligible.
This past week, the focus has been on the court bail issue.
Will the leading (not yet official) candidate post bail of nearly half a billion dollars, or will he go to jail for non-payment?
He claims to be a billionaire, even as he insists he cannot afford to post bond.
Which is it?
Or is it that bail companies refuse to post bond for him because he has a history of not paying his debts?
If he really is as rich as he claims, there would be no problem paying bond.
If he is not wealthy, therefore he lies.
There was a time when the word "liar" was never used in polite company, much less in American journalism.
Now, it's common.
As for threats of lawsuits against journalism outlets that print or broadcast reports of untrue statements or claims ...
If it ain't true, sue.
But if the report is true, there is no libel and it's pointless to sue.
That legal principle in America goes back to 1760, when the New York colonial governor sued a newspaper for printing a story about the governor and his mistress.
The defense was that the governor did in fact have a mistress, and everyone knew it. Therefore, there was no libel.
The same principle applies to Donald J. Trump. He complains about the many negative reports about his actions and behavior, but he does not threaten to sue.
Most likely reason: The reports are true, and therefore not libelous.
He could indeed sue, but that would be pointless. There are three primary supports for a defense against a libel suit:
1: The report is true.
2: It is provably true.
3: It was published without malice.
The third defense may be more difficult to establish, but that can be done by showing that the report simply quotes the political opposition, and does not reflect the opinion of the reporter who wrote the story.
Journalism reporters do just that: They simply report what people say and do, without including their opinions in the story. They leave opinion writing for the editorial page.
Politicians, of course, insist that reporters weave their opinions into their reports. But quoting opposition leaders as well as candidates, with an equal balance of space and time, is balanced coverage.
Some insist that quoting the opposition is, in and of itself, proof of bias, and therefore the reporter should be jailed. That happens in some other countries, not in America. The First Amendment to the Constitution, in effect since 1789, disallows that.
So unless political leaders suspend the Constitution, freedom of the press will stay.
As will other freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment, including freedom of religion and freedom of speech. But that may well be what some people these days want, that all Americans be members of a single church and political party.
No immigrants, no Muslims, no Buddhists, no Jews, no Roman Catholics, or any other belief system or ethnicity that does not reflect their vision of what America "should be."
WASPs only, they insist. All others must leave.
This past week, the focus has been on the court bail issue.
Will the leading (not yet official) candidate post bail of nearly half a billion dollars, or will he go to jail for non-payment?
He claims to be a billionaire, even as he insists he cannot afford to post bond.
Which is it?
Or is it that bail companies refuse to post bond for him because he has a history of not paying his debts?
If he really is as rich as he claims, there would be no problem paying bond.
If he is not wealthy, therefore he lies.
There was a time when the word "liar" was never used in polite company, much less in American journalism.
Now, it's common.
As for threats of lawsuits against journalism outlets that print or broadcast reports of untrue statements or claims ...
If it ain't true, sue.
But if the report is true, there is no libel and it's pointless to sue.
That legal principle in America goes back to 1760, when the New York colonial governor sued a newspaper for printing a story about the governor and his mistress.
The defense was that the governor did in fact have a mistress, and everyone knew it. Therefore, there was no libel.
The same principle applies to Donald J. Trump. He complains about the many negative reports about his actions and behavior, but he does not threaten to sue.
Most likely reason: The reports are true, and therefore not libelous.
He could indeed sue, but that would be pointless. There are three primary supports for a defense against a libel suit:
1: The report is true.
2: It is provably true.
3: It was published without malice.
The third defense may be more difficult to establish, but that can be done by showing that the report simply quotes the political opposition, and does not reflect the opinion of the reporter who wrote the story.
Journalism reporters do just that: They simply report what people say and do, without including their opinions in the story. They leave opinion writing for the editorial page.
Politicians, of course, insist that reporters weave their opinions into their reports. But quoting opposition leaders as well as candidates, with an equal balance of space and time, is balanced coverage.
Some insist that quoting the opposition is, in and of itself, proof of bias, and therefore the reporter should be jailed. That happens in some other countries, not in America. The First Amendment to the Constitution, in effect since 1789, disallows that.
So unless political leaders suspend the Constitution, freedom of the press will stay.
As will other freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment, including freedom of religion and freedom of speech. But that may well be what some people these days want, that all Americans be members of a single church and political party.
No immigrants, no Muslims, no Buddhists, no Jews, no Roman Catholics, or any other belief system or ethnicity that does not reflect their vision of what America "should be."
WASPs only, they insist. All others must leave.
