SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Spicer Confirms White House Actively Planning Attack on Press Freedoms
Effort to rewrite libel laws, says press secretary, 'is being looked into substantively and logistically'
May 01, 2017
White House press secretary Sean Spicer confirmed Monday that the Trump administration is actively--and in his words "substantively"--reviewing the nation's libel laws as it explores ways it could more easily sidestep First Amendment protections and target press coverage or news stories it deems objectionable.
On Sunday morning, White House chief of staff Reince Priebus told ABC's "This Week" that reworking libel law legislation is "something that we've looked at, and how that gets executed or whether that goes anywhere is a different story."
As a way to get official clarification of those remarks, New York Times correspondent Glenn Thrush asked Spicer during Monday's press briefing if it was a "project that is currently being working on by the [White House Counsel's Office]" and what the general status of the effort might be.
"I think the chief of staff made it very clear that is something that is being looked into substantively and then both logistically about how it would happen," Spicer responded.
Spicer downplayed the question, however, adding, "that's nothing new. It's something the president talked about on the campaign trail."
Indeed, Trump did talk about making it easier to file lawsuits against journalists and media outlets during the campaign--and it was something that sparked widespread outrage and concern.
During a campaign rally in February of 2016, Trump said, "One of the things I'm going to do if I win, and I hope we do and we're certainly leading. I'm going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money."
Though concerning for even a presidential candidate in the heat of a campaign to say such things, the concerns have only grown now that the man talking about stripping away core constitutional protections occupies the Oval Office.
At the end of March, Trump re-floated the idea in a passing tweet as he criticized the ongoing coverage he receives from the Times.
Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) was among those who expressed immediate concern following Priebus' comments on Sunday.
And while some argued any effort to actually rewrite libel laws by the Trump administration would likely go nowhere, that didn't stop at least one journalist from making sure Priebus understood why--given the administration's documented position on free speech--Trump's chief of staff would have no grounds to file suit when called a "lunkhead" or "a ninny" or "a birdbrain."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
White House press secretary Sean Spicer confirmed Monday that the Trump administration is actively--and in his words "substantively"--reviewing the nation's libel laws as it explores ways it could more easily sidestep First Amendment protections and target press coverage or news stories it deems objectionable.
On Sunday morning, White House chief of staff Reince Priebus told ABC's "This Week" that reworking libel law legislation is "something that we've looked at, and how that gets executed or whether that goes anywhere is a different story."
As a way to get official clarification of those remarks, New York Times correspondent Glenn Thrush asked Spicer during Monday's press briefing if it was a "project that is currently being working on by the [White House Counsel's Office]" and what the general status of the effort might be.
"I think the chief of staff made it very clear that is something that is being looked into substantively and then both logistically about how it would happen," Spicer responded.
Spicer downplayed the question, however, adding, "that's nothing new. It's something the president talked about on the campaign trail."
Indeed, Trump did talk about making it easier to file lawsuits against journalists and media outlets during the campaign--and it was something that sparked widespread outrage and concern.
During a campaign rally in February of 2016, Trump said, "One of the things I'm going to do if I win, and I hope we do and we're certainly leading. I'm going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money."
Though concerning for even a presidential candidate in the heat of a campaign to say such things, the concerns have only grown now that the man talking about stripping away core constitutional protections occupies the Oval Office.
At the end of March, Trump re-floated the idea in a passing tweet as he criticized the ongoing coverage he receives from the Times.
Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) was among those who expressed immediate concern following Priebus' comments on Sunday.
And while some argued any effort to actually rewrite libel laws by the Trump administration would likely go nowhere, that didn't stop at least one journalist from making sure Priebus understood why--given the administration's documented position on free speech--Trump's chief of staff would have no grounds to file suit when called a "lunkhead" or "a ninny" or "a birdbrain."
White House press secretary Sean Spicer confirmed Monday that the Trump administration is actively--and in his words "substantively"--reviewing the nation's libel laws as it explores ways it could more easily sidestep First Amendment protections and target press coverage or news stories it deems objectionable.
On Sunday morning, White House chief of staff Reince Priebus told ABC's "This Week" that reworking libel law legislation is "something that we've looked at, and how that gets executed or whether that goes anywhere is a different story."
As a way to get official clarification of those remarks, New York Times correspondent Glenn Thrush asked Spicer during Monday's press briefing if it was a "project that is currently being working on by the [White House Counsel's Office]" and what the general status of the effort might be.
"I think the chief of staff made it very clear that is something that is being looked into substantively and then both logistically about how it would happen," Spicer responded.
Spicer downplayed the question, however, adding, "that's nothing new. It's something the president talked about on the campaign trail."
Indeed, Trump did talk about making it easier to file lawsuits against journalists and media outlets during the campaign--and it was something that sparked widespread outrage and concern.
During a campaign rally in February of 2016, Trump said, "One of the things I'm going to do if I win, and I hope we do and we're certainly leading. I'm going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money."
Though concerning for even a presidential candidate in the heat of a campaign to say such things, the concerns have only grown now that the man talking about stripping away core constitutional protections occupies the Oval Office.
At the end of March, Trump re-floated the idea in a passing tweet as he criticized the ongoing coverage he receives from the Times.
Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) was among those who expressed immediate concern following Priebus' comments on Sunday.
And while some argued any effort to actually rewrite libel laws by the Trump administration would likely go nowhere, that didn't stop at least one journalist from making sure Priebus understood why--given the administration's documented position on free speech--Trump's chief of staff would have no grounds to file suit when called a "lunkhead" or "a ninny" or "a birdbrain."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.