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
Press secretary Sean Spicer answered questions by reporters at the White House on Monday. (Photo: PBS/YouTube/Screenshot)
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.
\u201cThis is marching America down the road to authoritarianism. Reince Preibus statements on stifling the press should alarm even Republicans. https://t.co/p7yTZaFCyq\u201d— Ted Lieu (@Ted Lieu) 1493566840
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, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. 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. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - 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.
\u201cThis is marching America down the road to authoritarianism. Reince Preibus statements on stifling the press should alarm even Republicans. https://t.co/p7yTZaFCyq\u201d— Ted Lieu (@Ted Lieu) 1493566840
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.
\u201cThis is marching America down the road to authoritarianism. Reince Preibus statements on stifling the press should alarm even Republicans. https://t.co/p7yTZaFCyq\u201d— Ted Lieu (@Ted Lieu) 1493566840
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.