"... one of the worst and most degenerate newspapers in the History of our Country, becoming a virtual 'mouthpiece' for the Radical Left Democrat Party. I view it as the single largest illegal Campaign contribution, EVER. Their Endorsement of Kamala Harris was actually put dead center on the front page of The New York Times, something heretofore UNHEARD OF! The 'Times' has engaged in a decades long method of lying about your Favorite President (ME!), my family, business, the America First Movement, MAGA, and our Nation as a whole. I am PROUD to hold this once respected 'rag' responsible, as we are doing with the Fake News Networks such as our successful litigation against George Slopadopoulos/ABC/Disney, and 60 Minutes/CBS/Paramount, who knew that they were falsely 'smearing' me through a highly sophisticated system of document and visual alteration, which was, in effect, a malicious form of defamation, and thus, settled for record amounts. They practiced this longterm INTENT and pattern of abuse, which is both unacceptable and illegal. The New York Times has been allowed to freely lie, smear, and defame me for far too long, and that stops, NOW! The suit is being brought in the Great State of Florida. Thank you for your attention to this matter. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"
Writes Trump, on Truth Social.
If your idea of America greatness doesn't include freedom of speech, it's not worth much.
And if you think the NYT is making an "illegal Campaign contribution" when it speaks about political candidates, you must want Citizens United overruled.
Posts
206 comments:
1 – 200 of 206 Newer› Newest»If your idea of America greatness doesn't include the right to sue for damages, it's not worth much.
I’m with Althouse on the law, and with Trump on sentiment.
Welp.
When you say (or write) that Trump is an anti-democratic strongman, you are accused of TDS, and then it becomes the rationale for his anti-democratic strongman actions.
It’s a vicious circle.
You have to wait for the trial to see if the NYT is worth reading.
I'm with Shouting Thomas on both.
The MSM has been making in-kind contributions to dems for decades, a total dollar value that has to be approaching at least $1 trillion now. $15bil is chump change considering their propaganda.
My father always brought home the Herald Tribune, and only the NYT when there was a train crash somewhere, for the pictures for me.
"If your idea of America greatness doesn't include the right to sue for damages, it's not worth much."
Yeah, Lawyer's Utopia. That's greatness for you.
Costs $15B to get a debate started?
“The 'Times' has engaged in a decades long method of lying about your Favorite President (ME!), my family, business, the America First Movement, MAGA, and our Nation as a whole.“
The case is about defamation while speaking freely.
The New York Times has been calling Republicans Fascists and threats to Democracy. Their readers now think it is OK to shoot us and cheers when we are shot.
The First amendment only works when everyone involved supports the First Amendment. The people who run and read the New York Times explicitly do not support the First Amendment.
What do you think we should do about this Ann?
Should we kill ourselves extending a Freedom to someone who uses that freedom to kill us?
Good thing he filed in Florida, since he couldn't win any court case in NYC. What's amusing about the MSM, is you only have to read the NYT's and WaPo, you can ignore the other newspapers because they'll print the same national/international stories from exactly the same POV.
You see the same pattern on TV. PBS-CBS-ABC-NBC-MSNBC-CNN-BBC, all the same stories from the same liberal/left POV.
I assume the NYT's will settle out of court. Like the others.
I’m with Shouting Thomas on the sentiment the law and the sentiment
"If your idea of America greatness doesn't include the right to sue for damages, it's not worth much."
Move to England.
Yeah, Lawyer's Utopia. That's greatness for you.
Sarcasm is the trope of teens and women. It says "Something's wrong and you have to figure out what it is."
…the tricky bit is the market is supposed to take care of a corrupt media but there’s a market for a corrupt media.
[shrug] It also seems to me that if Trump were the autocrat the NYT and everybody in their camp claims, he'd just... shut them down. He does not do that. And he complies with every court ruling.
Trump is suing over the Times endorsement?
Where's the beef?
Assassinations - hate- coordinated media lies -Democrat party lies - Democratic party inspired hate-fuel (War/Fascsim talk) - Democratic party brownshirt operation Antifa - it's all the same mafia SYSTEM.
Once written, twice... said...
When you say (or write) that Trump is an anti-democratic strongman, you are accused of TDS, and then it becomes the rationale for his anti-democratic strongman actions.
It’s a vicious circle.
The vicious cycle is democrats convincing themselves that Trump is an anti-democratic strongman and his supporters are fascists.
Then trying to kill him twice.
Then they shoot Charlie Kirk who they call a fascist in front of his family and thousands of supporters.
Then they cheer his death.
I cant think of a single President of even political figure in my lifetime that has been subject to more lies, slanders, and non-stop negative coverage than Trump. The MSM litterally prints negative stories about him 365-24-7, and the ratio of good/bad is 1 percent positive, 99 percent negative.
The MSM has zero credibility among anyone in the know. Only dumb low-information normies, and leftists think they're printing news and not propaganda.
Ann could be frustrated her subtle letters to the editor campaign to make NYT great again isn’t working. Maybe because NYT fired all the editors…
"Their readers now think it is OK to shoot us and cheers when we are shot."
No they don't and stop being stupid. Charlie Kirk's shooting has nothing do with NYT readers any more than Dylan Roof's crimes had to do with FoxNews. Is there any evidence that this 22 year old kid read the NEW YORK TIMES? So dumb.
They framed Nixon. Maybe he quit too early…
Personally, I don't believe any MSM story about Trump based on "anonymous" sources or quotes. They've lied so many times, they cant be trusted. Of course, gullible rubes will continue to believe them... gosh, they're reporters who say they're giving us the facts. LOL.
Shouting Thomas said...
I’m with Althouse on the law, and with Trump on sentiment.
There is a real systemic discussion to be had about the First amendment.
If words have consequences for example shouting "FIRE" in a theater we say the First amendment does not cover that.
So why does it cover allowing the left to call Donald Trump and Charlie Kirk Fascists when it clearly leads to violence and murder?
…the fun bit is discovery. You’d think the lawyers would appreciate that…
Freedom of the press, like all the other rights, doesn't exist in a vacuum. For a century, we have protected the marketplace against monopolies. Trump counter-attacks broadcasters who have not only de-facto oligopolies, but government-limited licenses. Print media have become monopolies or at best duopolies in their markets. At some point, don't the paper's free-press rights collide with their exploitation of monopolistic powers? I wonder if that will be discussed in Trump's brief. Also wonder if he will discuss Carlos Slim's control of the paper and try to characterize the NYT's speech as foreign lobbying, which we do subject to government control.
Then of course there is Sullivan, which gave the press special rights versus public figures.
Finally, the practicality - don't go up against someone who buys ink by the barrel? Trump's response is don't go up against a man who buys lawyers by the barrel. CC, JSM
Doesn't he only have to show malice?
…and as always there’s the asymmetry. Hawaiian judges are a part of then process that needs to be respected, nothing wrong with lawfare, except whenTrump does it…
Morning Toe was freaked out this morning by Bondi's plan to prosecute hate speech. Just glorious. CC, JSM
I give this my lawsuits that will settle before discovery tag…
"Doesn't he only have to show malice?"
With discovery in mind, that should be VERY EASY to do...
I'm guessing the idea of this is to redo the Palin defamation trial in a better venue.
It's lawfare all right, to account for jury nullification in blue areas.
Clickbait that will go nowhere in court.
…the fun bit is discovery.
The suit is an unmasking... disrobing the once respected "grey old lady." laying bare all it's flaws, warts and all.
Via Metafilter:
"Here's the opening paragraph of a 1951 Life article entitled "The Gray Lady Reaches 100":
The Old Gray Lady will celebrate her 100th birthday this Sept. 18. The "lady" is a newspaper -- the New York Times -- regarded by many in the world at large (and all within its own world) as the world's greatest. And newsmen generally hail it as "old" and "gray" by way of acknowledging its traditional special marks: starch conservatism and circumspection."
D.D. Driver said...
"Their readers now think it is OK to shoot us and cheers when we are shot."
No they don't and stop being stupid. Charlie Kirk's shooting has nothing do with NYT readers any more than Dylan Roof's crimes had to do with FoxNews. Is there any evidence that this 22 year old kid read the NEW YORK TIMES? So dumb.
DD Driver wants everyone to know that killing Charlie Kirk was just like Dylan Roof or something.
When Dylan Roof killed those people 99.9% of Republicans wanted him executed. Anyone who spoke even a hint of support for his action was immediately castigated.
When Charlie Kirk was killed hundreds of thousands of leftists including thousands of NYT's readers cheered. Their comments section was closed for obvious reasons. Even now every single leftist I know still caveats everything they say with "yes BUT".
DD Driver knows what forces were behind Kirk's assassination and he knows there is no real comparison to be made between Roof and Robinson.
It is just clear he wants us dead too.
He's a street fighter, and that's why they hate him so much. He's using the same kind of tactics against them that they relentlessly use against him. Not your basic country club Republican turning the other cheek and fastidiously only fighting back under Marquis of Queensbury rules and a copy of Robert's Rules of Order.
After ABC and CBS both folded rather than undergo strenuous discovery, why not? If they settle then Trump wins again. If they go forward a lot of the rot they hide, like things that came out during the Bari episodes, will be exposed driving the NYT public perception even lower than the whale shit it is now.
If your idea of America greatness doesn't include freedom of speech, it's not worth much
It gets worse. Here's Pam Bondi:
"There's free speech and then there's hate speech, and there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society...We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech."
I guess the guy who killed Kirk won.
https://x.com/i/status/1967754339612758178
There are massive media changes in the works. The Ellisons have CBS and Paramount, are angling to buy Warner Bros (and likely to get it), and now the word is they are bidding for TikTok.
https://fortune.com/2025/09/15/trump-tiktok-deal-larry-ellison-david-paramount-warner-brothers-china-xi-jinping/
Let's start with a rule of thumb. What is the political cross section of personnel, from bottom to top, at the NYT? 95% Democrats, you say? Unbiased, you say? Hmmm.
He has a right to sue. He may win or lose. Let the legal results fall where they may. Maybe the process is the punishment. Goodness knows that has been applied to Trump enough.
More whataboutism?!?!
Trump and MAGA have never supported free speech. Just like the radical left, they want to censor or destroy any person or group with which they disagree.
@ Bob Boyd - which of Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals is Bondi applying here? Oh yeah “make the enemy live up to its own book of rules”. Who invented the construct of hate speech?
The worm has turned. The old fortress of media ownership is broken, there are many new breaches in the walls. Theres going to have to be some considerable mopping up by the new owners, but the longer term trend is clear.
The paper that published The Pentagon Papers, is now threatened to have it's own papers published.
#Suits I hope will not suck. (I'm still waiting for the Epstein Files)
@ Althouse - I have been reading Miss Manners style tut tutting about the NYT here for years. Trumps people are going a bit more severe.
Oso Negro said...
"He has a right to sue. He may win or lose. Let the legal results fall where they may. Maybe the process is the punishment. Goodness knows that has been applied to Trump enough."
My thought, too. I'm also with Shouting Thomas.
I’m not a fan of any lawsuit that just throws a bunch of accusations against the wall and hopes one sticks. If it is a libel case, ok, bring it. But stick with it. If it is about endorsements, I would oppose it, but bring that question if you must try it again.
Also agree that suing for damages is a lawyer utopia. Living in Houston were most billboards are shilling for personal injury lawyers, you quickly realize the richest people in town are these parasites. They announce million dollar verdicts yet fail to mention how much they got, the doctors got (which is what the money should go for and probably would have anyway without the lawsuit), and the small faction the injured got for damages.
As for NYT, I have little pity for them, but wow, what timing to attack their free speech. What the hell?
But hordes of Dems blamed Fox News for Dylan Roof, IIRC
"I'm also with Shouting Thomas."
me too.
Re: Citizens United.
Yes, I want it repealed. It was bad law when it was decided.
This is an existential issue. No, I'm not talking about freedom of speech, because obviously everyone on all sides keeps talking like crazy. No, I'm referring to the horror that would result if Trump puts the NYT out of business...that would decimate this blog without Ann's favorite conversation-starter source. What then? Sunset photos too?
The world will be a better place when the New York Slimes is dead and buried. --- metaphorically speaking.
1. Wasn’t it the Democrats who started this whole Lawfare thing? The process is the punishment.
2. He’s already won a couple of these.
3. Discovery is going to be a bitch. Expect some criminal cases to come out of this.
The radical left, and those they cowed, controlled the high ground of US institutions of all kinds. This was a real world demonstration of Gramsci's idea of hegemony. The US right never had anything of the sort.
The lawsuit will get up to speed and start being public news right around the start of Mid-term campaigning. We'll get daily reminders of what is being discussed about the suit right alongside of the objective, unbiased reporting on the candidates of both parties, ha ha ha.
I'm with @Shouting Thomas too.
I started out thinking it was Trump overreach... and then I remembered the countless times they've said "it's Trump overreach".
4. When the NYT settles and sends him a big check, he can use the money to sue the Washington post. Learned that one from Soros. OPM.
@ Oso Negro
Make them live up to it, but don't make it the law of the land.
This isn't the market. This the AG saying she has the power to make people shut up now.
"Hate speech does not exist legally in America. There's ugly speech. There's gross speech. There's evil speech.
And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment.
Keep America Free." - Charlie Kirk
Based on the commentary the last several days, here in these threads and elsewhere in media from those on the right, I doubt the sincerity of the expressions in support of freedom of speech that they ever expressed.
Re Pam Bondi. She misspoke, but is too arrogant to say that. So she gave a long-winded defense of saying "hate speech" when she meant actions, not speech. It is unfortunate that Trump makes being one's own spokesperson look easy. It isn't. Harmeet Dhillon can. Hegseth can. Rubio can. JD certainly can.
Not Bondi. She gives blondes a reason to dye their hair.
I guess the Times could always hire Hilary's Computer Adm. Although, I believe it's more difficult now to delete paper trails. The fact, if the Times chooses to go that route, there would a missing gap in the paper trail... wait...I'm not going to be able to fining the post I'm laughing so much.
Thomas,
Please explain what was bad about Citizens United.
I thought it stood against the concept that the First Amendment only applies to individuals qua individuals, and that the moment two or more people join together to speak or publish they lost all constitutional protections.
It's still free, Inga. Not consequence free, but free as in "free speech" free. Speech right now is much freer than at any time from 1/6/2021 to 1/6/2025 and beyond dispute.
I thin it went the other way round Kirk
If you're going to institute the same policies as the left, why bother opposing them?
Mike MJB,
"The other way around" is what Citizens United *overturned*
The NYT might as well start settlement talks now. That way they can minimize the positive publicity to their nemesis, Trump, while saving the little, if any left, of their own reputation.
@ Bob Boyd- I was into free speech when free speech wasn’t cool. But sometimes we have to have it out about the limits. Better the courts than what happened this past week. I didn’t see that Trump intends to sue them for free speech, rather going past accepted limits.
@ planetgeo - if the NYT folds up it just hastens the transition to the “Althouse talks to Grok” blog
Not Bondi. She gives blondes a reason to dye their hair.
I was walking along a river one day, looking for a place to cross, when I saw Pam Bondi on the opposite bank.
I shouted, "Pardon me, Madame Attorney General, but how do I get to the other side?"
She furrowed her brow, thought for a moment, then shouted back, "You are on the other side."
“There's free speech and then there's hate speech, and there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society.We will absolutely target you, go after you if you are targeting anyone with hate speech, anything, and that's across the aisle.”
Pam Bondi
"Hate speech does not exist legally in America. There's ugly speech. There's gross speech. There's evil speech. And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment. Keep America Free."
Charlie Kirk
“Bob Boyd said...
“If you're going to institute the same policies as the left, why bother opposing them?”
Bob, there has been inadequate pushback against the hegemony of the left. They have spent 60 years gnawing through our culture like termites eating the framing timbers if the family homestead. Why can’t I use the word “negro” in polite company? Why can’t people make off-color jokes at work? Why does the left get to create the construct of “hate speech” from whole cloth like the Supremes pulling Roe b Wade out of their asses and then decide what counts as “hate speech”? If there is to hate speech at all then it must work for both sides. Let me fire an opening round here - you all better start capitalizing WHITE when describing non-POCs or I am going to denounce Iit as hate speech. Next year I will declare that only white people can use that term and everyone else must call us Euro-Americans. The year after that it will be European-Americans. And then people of white. Is this ringing any bells for you?
Is there an echo in here?
Boogaloo Gyroper!
Oh no, Inga doubts our sincerity; how will we care that she does?
Complaint here:
https://primarynewssource.org/sourcedocument/today-i-have-the-great-honor-of-bringing-a-15-billion-dollar-defamation-and-libel-lawsuit-against-the-new-york-times-one-of-the-worst-and-most-degenerate-newspapers-in-the-history-of-our-country-b/
But is that the subject of the lawsuit- the endorsement? Is there a complaint published? There is plenty for which to sue the NYTimes in Trump's case, but the endorsement of Harris isn't one of them.
When the NYT settles and sends him a big check, he can use the money to sue the Washington post.
After Trump get's done, historians will record the 2020 Biden Installation as the worst political blunder in modern times.
Inga shifts her strategy to the fresh hive left pivot.
Use some of Charlie Kirk's quotes - to intimate that 'Charlie deserved to be assassinated'.
Your side (D) kills people for speech.
Inga - if you want ideological alignment, stick with the left. Conservatives don’t give a fuck if another conservative disagrees with them. You are wasting your time with this line of whatever you hope to accomplish here
There is plenty for which to sue the NYTimes in Trump's case, but the endorsement of Harris isn't one of them.
Oh yeah, name some.
Inga ☝
Hate speech does not exist legally in America. There's ugly speech. There's gross speech. There's evil speech.
And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment.
Keep America Free."
Charlie Kirk
This is perfect. In Inga’s stupidity she demonstrates the situation we are in.
After murdering Kirk for trying to debate and discuss these issues now in her absolute evil Inga quotes him back to us in order To continue her attacks on us.
Inga does not care about free speech she clearly wants us killed and silenced, but she uses the words of Charlie Kirk to advance her evil aims.
Freedom of speech only works when all sides actually believe in it. Does not believe in free speech. She still supports the people that kicked Trump off of social media.
The New York Times demanded that Trump be silenced after the 2020 elections. He’s a threat to our democracy, right? Just so happens thousands of New York Times readers think it’s OK to shoot Trump. shocking.
Bob Boyd said...
“Is there an echo in here?”
Yeah that would be me, Bob.
I didn’t see that Trump intends to sue them for free speech, rather going past accepted limits.
And how is "going past accepted limits" actionable at all?
Was Citizens United a defamation case? IIRC, the claim was that the filmmakers violated a ban on corporate political speech within X days of an election. What the president seems to be discussing is a claim that the NYT was part of a civil conspiracy to defame him, designed in such a way as to amount to an illegal campaign contribution. IDK if such a claim, has any chance of success, but one could reasonably support it without also wanting to see Citizens United overturned.
I scanned the complaint- 85 pages- there is more there than just the endorsement which I am not sure is even one of the claims itself though it is mentioned explicitly in the opening paragraph. I will have to read it more closely to sure for what he is actually suing.
Trump probably can't win this but he at least filed it in Florida rather than New York. Depending on the judge, it might survive an initial dismissal.
Bob Boyd said...
”Hate speech does not exist legally in America. There's ugly speech. There's gross speech. There's evil speech.
And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment.
Keep America Free." - Charlie Kirk
Are you volunteering to be the next martyr?
“Should we kill ourselves extending a Freedom to someone who uses that freedom to kill us?”
Here we have yet another fantasy of a paranoid person who is trying to convince conservatives here that all people on the left want to kill him. If a leftie so much as sneezes it’s a code to the assassins to kill Achilles.
there has been inadequate pushback against the hegemony of the left.
Agreed. But the remedy is more pushback, more speech, more and better arguments, the hard work, not to abandon the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
It's already working. Look how many irresponsible people have gotten their walking papers in the last week. Trump got re-elected. Left wing media is falling apart. Change is coming to the academy. We are currently winning. The left is desperate. Let's not adopt their evil logic and rationalizations.
Any power you give to Bondi, you're giving to everybody else who comes into that office.
Inga- despite your desperate delusions - your team(D) just killed someone.
Calmness… Honesty… Resolution…
@ Oso Negro
When I said echo, I was talking about Inga's posts repeating mine.
BTW — where’s the Epstein files
This must be the rallying cry for every press outlet, university, business, law firm, nonprofit, and other entity targeted by the regime. Settling betrays all those entities.
"The other way around" is what Citizens United *overturned*
Yes. That's why Hillary bitched about it, it "allowed" a movie about her to be shown. She wanted to stop David Bossie from showing it. Clinton's always wanted to censor any speech they didn't like. Trump just wants to be paid if they're are going to lie about him over and over.
"Oh yeah, name some."
Pretty much ever single story they wrote about the Steele Dossier and the Russian Collusion Hoax, Fredo. Publishing as fact stuff they almost certainly knew were lies but didn't care. Additionally, every single story they wrote claiming Trump incited the January 6th riot. I know you believe all of those stories were true- I don't- so isn't it a matter for a jury to decide?
Mike Wolf - yes.
“Inga - if you want ideological alignment, stick with the left.”
I don’t want or expect ideological alignment when I comment here. I don’t have any aspirations of accomplishing anything here other than exercising my right of free speech under the 1st Amendment. You have the right think of it what you will.
"‘Am I safe here?’ TPUSA student speaks out after GWU official calls Kirk assassination ‘fair.’"
Leftists(D) answer: NO - "we on the left get to murder you for your opinions'
Boyd: “ Pardon me, Madame Attorney General, but how do I get to the other side?"
She furrowed her brow, thought for a moment, then shouted back, "You are on the other side."”
Yes you are on the other side. And there’s no bridge,tunnel, or ferry back. You lot rowed the boat to this place of very different rules. Now Bondi is playing by them. Glorious. CC, JSM
THe Times is the enemy of the people, most recently they whitewashed the trantifa cell, details by data republican, of how deep they are, their currying favor with Stalin, Castro, with Mao, with Ho Chi Minh, with this Ayatollan and that,
@ Freder - if it doesn’t go past accepted limits I look for it to be summarily dismissed
@Bob -do you think filing a suit is unconstitutional? I thought you could pretty much sue anyone for anything in this country. It will go nowhere if it has no merit. I don’t personally give any power to US AGs. They just take it in my lifetime and mostly seem to get away with it. That is not an endorsement, merely an observation. I am enjoying this new mean-ass Republican Party. If you want nice, don’t worry, odds are
The Republicans will revert to their mean soon enough
I don't- so isn't it a matter for a jury to decide?
Not really. Weren't you complaining about biased juries, mainly in New York and D.C.? Yet here Trump claims he is suing in Florida. Talk about forum shopping.
Inga's free speech includes all the leftist BS, lies and current circulating memes. Right on q.
Boogaloo Groyper! Paul Pelosi!
Did I turn italics off? My bad
Suigh
“When I said echo, I was talking about Inga's posts repeating mine.”
It was worth repeating and seeing Bondi’s and Kirk’s opinions about free speech in the same comment to make the contrast crystal clear.
Oh shit, no!
with Sullivan, they slandered an evil man, the procurator of Georgia, of course with the Pentagon Papers, they encouraged all sorts of malfeasance
Bondi doesn’t even have to win to win. If she loses the cases, she establishes precedent that enshrines more speech protections. Which is probably what she really wants. If she wins the cases, she gets to use the rules the Dems established against them for a few years. And so will Judge Dredd Vance for eight years. Might not be any Dems left to use the rules against us in 2037.
Almost makes me want to see her go all out against gun rights too. CC, JSM
BTW — where’s the Epstein files
I'm (not) shocked you missed the news. WaPo or similar site just reviewed 13,000 of Epstein's emails (revealing more crimes by Ghislaine) from 2007 and the only time he mentions Trump (3 times) is to bitch about Trump informing on him and remove him from his Christmas card list.
The more that comes out the less we will hear from you Kak, because like with Kirk, it's all bad news for your side.
Bob Boyd said...
Agreed. But the remedy is more pushback, more speech, more and better arguments, the hard work, not to abandon the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
This is wrong. It is a luxury belief that can only be held by people who have never experienced a real threat to their freedom.
The constitution is backstopped by force.
Period.
"Based on the commentary the last several days, here in these threads and elsewhere in media from those on the right, I doubt the sincerity of the expressions in support of freedom of speech that they ever expressed."
Take this sincerely, Dingabat- we are quite happy to take the rules of free speech you and your fellow travelers used on us and shove them up your ass so far that you eventually become a sincere advocate for free speech yourself.
Are you volunteering to be the next martyr?
Are you going to stop supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic? I doubt it. Neither am I.
I gotta go to work.
Charlie Kirk literally defended Free Speech to the Death and you people want to Kill it. This is what happens when a susceptible minority of people becomes brainwashed by a combination of a con man and a very insidious algorithm that feeds them all of the vile slop that they can choke down.
they celebrated a Cuban regime trained terrorist and propagandist, alas on exactly the wrong day,
Trump’s “tire of winning” is the best kept promise in the history of the US presidency.
On the other hand Bolton was BEGGING to go to Pedo Island.
make Carlos Slims reach into his money bag, or hand it over to a respectable oligarch, like the one who owns the Independent,
Trump said...
I view it as the single largest illegal Campaign contribution, EVER. Their Endorsement of Kamala Harris was actually put dead center on the front page of The New York Times, something heretofore UNHEARD OF!
Althouse said...
And if you think the NYT is making an "illegal Campaign contribution" when it speaks about political candidates, you must want Citizens United overruled.
Not necessarily. Trump does not seem to be arguing for prior restraint or censorship. Is the illegality in the failure to report or reimburse an in-kind contribution? For example, isn't that why the Harris campaign reimbursed Oprah the $1 million+?
That said, Trump makes it clear this is his opinion and I don't see him pressing such a claim beyond an FEC filing.
When every lie the left manufactured - ends up with the assassination of someone who speaks in public who the left hates -
Restorative Justice.
they supported banning a president, on false pretense, actually there were no pretenses that really qualified, so the Crocodile tears, have to be Meg size,
Ann Althouse said: "If your idea of America greatness doesn't include freedom of speech, it's not worth much."
You just banned me from commenting on your blog, Ann. Because I accurate quoted Democrat racists to demonstrate where racism is in our country.
You do not support free speech any more than Trump does.
Howard - pffft. Stop it. We don't want to kill free speech. Not at all.
Lies are free speech... especially to those on the corrupt left.
But the liar - has a right to face consequences.
Oh come on, Ann! You know that defamation does not constitute free speech. You're too smart, and too well-trusted, to fudge things like that.
The primary argument against the law overturned in Citizens United was exactly that- the law carved out exceptions for newspapers. The NYTimes continued to endorse candidates after the law was enacted but before it was overturned. The newspaper also supported the law explicitly in many stories and editorials. The law had to be overturned on that injustice alone not to mention the free speech issues.
Any claims Trump makes regarding the endorsement should and will get dismissed at the first hearing and he should have to pay fees for bringing that claim. However, that isn't the main part of the complaints in this lawsuit- he alleges they deliberately lied maliciously in several instances between 2020 and 2024. Sounds like, to me, it should survive to discovery on those claims at the very least- he should get the right to try to prove probable malice to the judge.
It was just a few months ago Ann was reminding us that she effuses over Trump as a free speech champion in her dreams.
Howard - can you please identify which commenter here wants to kill free speech?
Charlie Kirk literally defended Free Speech to the Death and you people want to Kill it.
Well said.
Enjoyed it, boys. Gotta go.
That's a lawsuit that I hope prevails. Citizens United did not legalize slander, defamation, and dishonesty.
“Are you going to stop supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic? I doubt it…”
I don’t doubt it.
“A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution. Our great ‘Founders’ did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!”
Trump
they have put a target on the last five supreme court justices with their slander and defamation, sometimes with reprints from ProPublica or the New Yorker,
yes the Fraudulent election, they sanctioned led to the horrors in Afghanistan, Ukraine and Gaza,
Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech. That's pretty clear, and I am a First Amendment absolutist. Congress simply can't pass laws restricting speech, period. Citizens United was correctly decided.
That said, the First Amendment can and should coexist with suing for libel, slander and defamation. If the NY Times has libeled, slandered or defamed Trump they should lose the lawsuit and pay compensation. There is no conflict between the concepts.
In the spirit of maximum free expression the bar for proving libel, slander and defamation should be high. High but not insurmountable.
The NYT Times can endorse anyone it likes on the front page in big letters or any other way. It cannot knowing defame someone without being subject to penalty.
the Times contaminates the jury pool, wherever it is read whether downtown Gotham, or in some village in far off Tibet,
Inag - back to "how dare anyone question any election a Democratic "wins".
But you leftists continually say that Trump didn't win. YOU yourself said over and over that Russia hacked the election.
"If your idea of America greatness doesn't include freedom of speech, it's not worth much."
So ABC saying Trump was convicted of rape is totally protected under the umbrella of free speech?
C'mon Prof.
“Charlie Kirk literally defended Free Speech to the Death” and YOU people killed him, Howard.
now they settled, because discovery can be so interesting,
Bob Boyd said...
Are you volunteering to be the next martyr?
Are you going to stop supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic? I doubt it. Neither am I.
I gotta go to work.
The domestic enemies just shot Kirk.
They are dancing in the streets and using his words against us.
If you want to sit there and virtue signal about how holy and pure you are I support that. You are here in good faith.
I disagreed with Kirk. He thought you could talk to the left. He was an extremely decent and kind person. I will forever be in awe of his courage and his accomplishments.
He was wrong. Freedom is something you fight for and commit violence to obtain. Veterans understand this. It seems a lot of coddled people still need to go see how fragile and unique our constitutional republic really is.
You and Inga are using the same argument. This should be a wake up call to you.
“YOU yourself said over and over that Russia hacked the election.”
That’s a lie. I never said there was any proof that Russia hacked voting machines or manipulated the vote count. Russia did however wreak havoc with massive mis and disinformation campaigns. You accuse the left of lying, but your commentary is rife with nonsense, lies and plain old bullshit.
As Achilles said: "There is a real systemic discussion to be had about the First amendment."
For example, suppose we note that the NYT itself opposed "free speech" and that its staffers suppressed opinion as in the case of Senator Tom Cotton and Bari Weiss. And that the writers caused internal advocates for free speech to be fired such as the editor of the opinion page (whose name I think was Bennett.) Then if we can assume its output is not the product of free speech is it protected by the First Amendment? Is it more like false advertising which is not protected speech? It's output is offensive and hateful but that might be protected. But the current mission statement of the NYT is to avoid free speech, expecially with regard to Trump. Then the resulting self-designated non-free speech output was aimed at damaging a Trump. Damage, I argue, was the goal, not free speech, in the case of the NYT v. Trump. Then that would not be under the First Amendment any more than tobacco advertising which denied the cancer link.
they have defamed true journalists like o'keefe, and they coasted on the efforts of glenn greewald's data mining, like every major broad sheet in the West,
I like how they party of personal responsibility is all for group punishment now. It wasn't the assassin's fault, you say. Using your logic, we should blame RFK Jr for the death of the United healthcare executive because of the way Bobby J has slammed Big medicine as evil billionaires draining the people's bank account and killing Americans for fun and profit. Other accessories could include Bernie Sanders Joe Rogan and Theo Von.
“If you want to sit there and virtue signal about how holy and pure you are I support that.”
If expressing support for the 1st amendment is virtue signaling, it pretty much signals your support to abandon your oath to uphold the Constitution. You’ve made yourself pretty clear.
RIP constitution.
Good work MAGAts.You got your big authoritarian daddy in charge.. Pam Bondi said she’s looking into charging an Office Depot employee who wouldn’t print Chuck Kirk fliers for his memorial, rally. Finally,! America is great again
on both the Wikileaks and the Snowden papers,
now under Obama, the Jeffrey Sterling case, where they subpoened James Risen, the one where James Rosen was involved, the investigation of the AP to protect John Brennan as a source
the light bringer, they moved heaven and earth, to install in the White House did that,
I cry not for the NYT... reap what you sow.
their behavior as the Doha gazette, white nighting the worst gang of terrorists, since September 11th, inciting violence by their omissions and their inclusions,
Citizens United.
We all recall how the collective left melted down over it - and lies about it.
It came about because hillary demanded a movie be suppressed.
I don’t know, this doesn’t seem like a free speech issue to me. Litigation has long been used to target the consequences of speech and existing campaign finance laws certainly impact aspects of political speech by specific parties. This isn’t a case where Trump is using the power of the government to shut down speech or censor his political opponents like Biden did. Trump seems to be within his rights here even if I think he is unlikely to prevail. But IANAL
where were they on the spurious Dominion proscription, of NewCorps, I can do his all day, (spoiler, they celebrated it)
no, its a tort, a civil action, but the Carlos Slims chimp set, seem to think they are privileged,
Howard said...
I like how the party of personal responsibility is all for group punishment now. It wasn't the assassin's fault, you say. Using your logic, we should blame RFK Jr for the death of the United healthcare executive because of the way Bobby J has slammed Big medicine as evil billionaires draining the people's bank account and killing Americans for fun and profit. Other accessories could include Bernie Sanders Joe Rogan and Theo Von.
We are for individual responsibility.
The left are proven liars. Inga is just a few posts up pretending she didn’t want everyone in the Trump administration thrown in jail and her opponents here re educated over the Russian collusion hoax.
Their words mean nothing.
They make it clear by their actions that they want us dead and silenced. Inga specifically over the last days has repeated the lies that Robinson is a right wing groyper in order to justify the assassination. Now you want to pretend she is telling the truth on anything or has a shred of good faith anywhere in her black and wretched soul?
She personally earned absolute distrust by running with dozens of lies she used over the last ten years to paint us as authoritarian racist fascists.
I find it particularly lazy on your part that you think they should be able to say and do whatever they want and then pretend this is group punishment when we have hundreds of examples of their bad faith.
"I like how they party of personal responsibility is all for group punishment now."
We want the ideal, Howard, however, we are going to insist on the same rules for both sides. The Left gets to choose which it is. Choose wisely.
they abetted the Media Matters campaign of defamation, most recently against Musk, (this schadenfreude has a rich rocky road flavor)
Inag lies again:
"Russia did however wreak havoc with massive mis and disinformation campaigns"
wow.
Where is your proof? Proof - NOW.
A few Facebook ads that no one saw?
I demand you provide proof of YOUR accusation.
Also - we are all still waiting for you to provide proof that Trump's speech incited violence on Jan 6th.
Still waiting for you to admit you lied - or provide proof.
You lie and you cannot back up your lie. so you run away. Which is fine by us - liar.
Trump's speech is available. Comb thru it and inform us.
when persons were deplatformed, they said well just get your own platform, and when parler and co, were locked out, they were as silent as basenghi,
Well..... I have to say, I have a little more faith in the strength of the Constitution to weather this lawsuit, than some of the pearl-clutching Angry Progressive Left, here. Are you all sure you're not just lamenting lost ground, having mistaken it for the high ground, thanks to your own side's relentless cheerleading that it's 'OK when We do it to protect Our Democracy !'?
I want all the rules the left has abused to get Trump to be used on them by Trump. There is no rule of law in this country when the legal profession are partisan hacks. They destroyed the fences of laws to get to Trump, and now they have to hide behind nothing.
YOU people, Howard.
The threat here is a sign of weakness and insecurity. A sad tired old king, enfeebled and unhappy with the throne he’s won.
of course local fishwrap like the Herald, the Unsensible (Gannett) and whoever owns the Palm Beach Post, are willing to fill in the obligatory defamation,
to whit the Helderman reports on Dominion, aired on HBO
and later FRontline, where not admitted as evidence in the NewsCorp matter,
“Inga specifically over the last days has repeated the lies that Robinson is a right wing groyper in order to justify the assassination.”
My opinion that Robinson was a groyper doesn’t indicate I said so to “justify the assassination” of Kirk. Do you think people here don’t see how you attach your delusions to everything and anything a person on the left says? Or do you think the majority her are as deluded as you?
RIP constitution.
LOL as if you fags ever cares about it
Inga said...
“If you want to sit there and virtue signal about how holy and pure you are I support that.”
If expressing support for the 1st amendment is virtue signaling, it pretty much signals your support to abandon your oath to uphold the Constitution. You’ve made yourself pretty clear.
The Constitution is a social contract.
I fully support living under the Constitution and the rules that it gives us to live in a free country. I will happily live with any person and afford them the freedom we both share and value and are willing to die for.
You have proven you don’t believe in the fire amendment or the second amendment. You will never accept my right to speak or bear arms. You are supporting the people who killed Charlie Kirk and celebrated his death.
You broke the contract. Your entire party broke the contract.
We need to address your breach of contract and we are not going to let you cynically pretend we have to abide by the contract you broke.
I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. If The Times has done nothing wrong, they've got nothing to be afraid of.
look we know you are a soul less harpy, no need to bring any extra receipts,
TeaBagHag said...
RIP constitution.
Good work MAGAts.You got your big authoritarian daddy in charge.. Pam Bondi said she’s looking into charging an Office Depot employee who wouldn’t print Chuck Kirk fliers for his memorial, rally. Finally,! America is great again
You broke the contract.
We want our social contract back.
You have to be defeated in order to have our social contract back.
take the Zimmerman case, the omission that Frances Robles (a former Herald reporter, btw,) made in the course of the investigation, along with other parties at MSNBC, and the Atlantic, made it so despite his acquital, he was still destroyed, they do this to the smallest bystander, as a signal move, as a 'public person' he was unable to recover any damages,
This is the issue that needs settling, pretty much.
"You broke the contract. Your entire party broke the contract.
We need to address your breach of contract and we are not going to let you cynically pretend we have to abide by the contract you broke."
“look we know you are a soul less harpy, no need to bring any extra receipts”
Are you calling Althouse a soulless harpy? Why bother commenting here then?
Proposition 1: the Trump administration favors the First Amendment only for its friends. If you doubt me, read the Wilmer Cutler opinion or the Harvard opinion. Don't bash me without reading them or at least absorbing their holdings.
Here's the Wilmer Hale opinion. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2025cv00917/278933/110/
The Harvard opinion is here. https://www.harvard.edu/federal-lawsuits/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/2025/09/gov.uscourts.mad_.283718.238.0_1.pdf
Still waiting for Inag to back up her lie about Trumps Jan 6th speech.
Proposition 2: this lawsuit is complete b.s. The idea that you can sue The Times for endorsing your opponent is disgusting.
Proposition 3: Trump's big win against Paramount CBS was a settlement coerced by the unlawful threat to deny Paramount's merger.
'
Again - proving Inga lies - no matter what the subject is:
"Russia did however wreak havoc with massive mis and disinformation campaigns"
Got proof?
More leftwing (inga-like) Antifa-thug lies.
This time - by one of the kingpins
I thought of something just now. The Left treats all of Trump's alleged constitutional violations as if we currently enjoy all our rights.
We don't. We haven't in my whole lifetime. I was born in 1967.
I would suggest the Right adopt the following litany of all our rights that we have already lost to the Left:
Speech and Press - Denied. (see Twitter Papers)
Free Association (especially free commerce) - Denied. (explicit rationale of the VRA and CRA)
Religion - Denied. (Covid and post-J6 church crackdowns - unless it's a Crump crackhead funeral)
Petition Government for Redress - Denied. (gets turned into 'insurrection')
Keep and Bear Arms - Denied.
Quartering Troops - technically not denied, but what else would you call being forced to pay to house millions of foreign military-aged males? Hmm, maybe we should stop using the nasty term 'illegals' and start calling them Hessians.
Search and Seizure - Denied. (see esp misuse of FISA)
Due Process - Denied.
Jury Trial - Denied. (see petty offense laws; see also gerrymandering of urban jury pools)
Confrontation Clause - Denied. (esp in child cases and sometimes even with adult woman victims)
Civil Jury Trial - ok, still have that, mainly because it helps the plaintiff's bar. Eroded by all the admin law courts, though.
Cruel/Unusual Punishments - Denied (see Trump).
Amd IX - Denied. (by a whole branch of law giving greater protection to enumerated rights, and creating 'rights' for special people to be used not as shields for them, but as cudgels on the rest of us)
Amd X - Denied. (by the expansion of the Commerce Clause to cover anything we want)
Abolition of Slavery - Reversed. (by wholesale importation of illegal labor. Remember, Northerners mostly disliked slavery because it undercut their wages, not out of any great love for blacks. Amd XIII protected poor whites as much as freedmen.)
Privileges and Immunities - Denied. (chiefly by extending them to noncitizens, unlawful combatants, etc)
Equal Protection - Denied. Replaced by special protection for special people. (The most pernicious of the denials, as it effectively denies all the other rights)
Right to Vote - Denied. (diluted by gerrymandering, fraud, and inflating population figures with Hessians)
This is the world I have lived in my entire life. And a lot of other people like me have noticed it the whole time. This should be pushed back in the face of any Dem who claims MAGA is some kind of fascist movement.
Some Republican should be on C-SPAN every day, reciting this parade of horribles. And finish it with "Charlie Lives!" CC, JSM
"Proposition 2: this lawsuit is complete b.s. The idea that you can sue The Times for endorsing your opponent is disgusting."
Read the complaint before commenting is a wise move, Stephen. I don't think the endorsement needed to be included in the complaint but he does allege that NYTimes libeled him in numerous ways prior to the election to support their endorsement. Libel is a grounds for a lawsuit as any real lawyer would recognize.
The U.S. hgotten too progressive and its media has a liberal bias.
The only solution is tearing up the fucking constitution, were sticking it the libs!!!!”-
MAGA
This is how the Modern progressive Evil Left - roll.
"Proposition 3: Trump's big win against Paramount CBS was a settlement coerced by the unlawful threat to deny Paramount's merger."
Prove it.
Proposition 4: The constant discounting of the mainstream media here is ridiculous. Much of what the Post and the Times report is repeated in the WSJ (a Murdoch paper that I read every day) almost verbatim. Is the WSJ corrupt? Trump has sued them, but its another BS lawsuit. If you don't read MSM, where do you folks get your news? From Fox? But Fox paid almost a Billion dollars to Dominion rather than try a case in which discovery produced a lot of written evidence that Fox had knowingly published falsehoods about election fraud because it did not want to anger its viewers. Pretty trustworthy, no? Or do you prefer outlets that that will lie to you rather than offend you?
the Times is utterly without conscience, full of malice, abetting the Hamas butchers, now this is not really surprising as they enabled the secessionist as well as the jim crow for the better part of a century, as they did service for the Communists, local and abroad
@Althouse, it is my belief that partisan judges got Sullivan wrong. I believe that newspapers have a responsibility to get the facts correct, and the larger the newspaper the greater the responsibility.
Nevertheless, when it comes to the New York Times writing anything at all about Donald J. Trump, the “reckless disregard for the truth” standard should be assumed to have been met.
"Proposition 1: the Trump administration favors the First Amendment only for its friends. If you doubt me, read the Wilmer Cutler opinion or the Harvard opinion. Don't bash me without reading them or at least absorbing their holdings."
I, for one, will wait to see what SCOTUS does on the appeals.
the Journal is nearly as disreputable as they have been party to the Carroll fraud, the Russia hoax, and most recently the Epstein subterfuge, that is ongoing,
Is the WSJ corrupt?
Lately, yes. It seems to have hired a bunch of Times and Post rejects, without thinking through the impact on its reputation.
Citizens United held unconstitutional a statute prohibiting political speech for a period immediately preceding an election. So, the reference to that case is inapt.
I attended the rehearing of that case. Ted Olson was fantastic.
that paper pointed didn't mention the Helderman reports, either, it's rather distressing Pravda and Xinhua did their dark deeds in part because of fear,
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.